In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 04:34:04 -0000 (UTC), Andrew
<andrew@spam.net> wrote:

>Newyana2 wrote on Tue, 28 May 2024 09:23:55 -0400 :
>
>> So... you're saying it's fine to yap on your cellphone
>> while driving -- or even while taming lions or mountain climbing --
>> because accidents are directly connected to low intelligence.
>> And you're most decidedly not a moron. You're a genius, by
>> virtue of your science degree.
>> And you're also a fatalist? All accidents are predestined. And
>> somehow destiny has ruled that scientists don't get into accidents.
>> Rather, accidents are Fate's way of punishing dumb people.
>>
>> That helps explain why you think that it's not dumb to ride a
>> motorcycle: You have a science degree that prevents you from
>> being hit by a truck. Now that you've clarified your logic, even
>> halfwits like me can understand it.
>
>The only claim I'm making is that it's a myth that the cellphone saturation
>rates going from 0% to nearly 100% in a few years had any measurable effect
>on the accident rate trend in each of the 50 states in the United States.

Most of us here know that
>
>That's simply a fact.

It's your opinion.

>If people don't like that fact, they can cite some other reliable agency
>other than the US Census Bureau who reports US normalized accident rates.

Or they can just semi-ignore your opinion, since you don't back it up
with logic. Logical logic, that is. You have a few facts but you don't
connect them sufficiently, and the ones you offer are not sufficent to
support your opinion. Instead you just claim your conclusions are
facts.
>
>They can also cite accident rates year over year in other countries.
> <https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>
>
>Notice that the common myth isn't only unsupported in the United States.
>But you won't click on any of these reference links, now will you.
Myth has two meanings, the classic meaning of a narrative that explains
something, and the more recent narrowed meaning of a specifically false
narrative. I've forgotten what you say the myth is, but if it's too
strong, of course it's not true. That's implied by the word "too". But
if it's that cell phones cause a lot more accidents and deaths than they
prevent, I'm sure that's true and you haven't convinced anyone here
otherwise. You have given only the vaguest examples of how cell phones
might lower the accident rate, and I don't think they do more than a
teeny tiny bit. So all we have are the accidents they cause.

Yet you're still posting about it with no additional logic or arguments.

On 2024-05-26 02:40, Andrew wrote:
> micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:34:27 -0400 :
>

>> you turn off every
>> person who thinks cell phones cause accidents.

The complete quote was:

]>> More insults. In the same way I turned you off in my 3rd line above by
]>> calling your ideas mistaken, by calling them stupid, you turn off every
]>> person who thinks cell phones cause accidents. If you're a scientist,
]>> you probably know some other scientists. Ask them if insulting people
]>> is an effective way to convince anyone of what you want them to believe.

>
> I'm a scientist. I look at facts. If people can't handle facts, then they
> can't help me... they can't help you... and they can't help themselves.
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acensus.gov+us+accident+rate+year+over+year>
>
> You think I don't realize most people believe in myths?
> Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate.
> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s1103.xls>

scientists do not insult other scientists that disagree with them.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 5/29/2024 12:34 AM, Andrew wrote:
>
> Notice that the common myth isn't only unsupported in the United States.
> But you won't click on any of these reference links, now will you.
>

I clicked, read and responded to the first links you posted.
You never answered. At any rate, this is getting silly. You've
said your piece. It's nonsense. You only attack rather than
discuss with people. I'm beginning to think that you're a bot
created by a consortium of car and cellphone makers.

If you want to discuss ANYTHING you have to start by trying
to be intellectually honest. You can't do that if you hold onto a
vested interest in the outcome.

On 5/29/2024 1:05 AM, Andrew wrote:

> Nobody has yet found any statistic that backs up the myth.
> There's a reason for that fact.
>

You, yourself found statistics that you posted in the other
thread:

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot

An insurance company survey that found at least 11% of fatal
accidents are directly cause by cellphone usage. You can change your
definition of the "myth" to adjust to the data, but the obvious facts
remain: Cellphone use while driving is distracting, dangerous, and
causes accidents. On a less tragic level it's also anti-social. Cellphone
users are depending on attentive drivers to prevent accidents.

There's a basic requirement of citizenship in modern society that
people need to pull their own weight. Otherwise civility can't last.
There needs to be a recognition of basic common decency. Part of
that is to pay attention while driving and not make other people
pay attention for you.

Fortunately, cellphone use while driving is increasingly being outlawed.
Unfortunately, it's not easy to catch talking or texting drivers, and
probably most of the cops who should be doing it are on their own
cellphones. They'd much rather sit and relax on the side of the road,
talking to friends while they run scam speeding traps. For a simple
reason: Radar guns provide easy proof of speeding. Catching people
on cellphones is work.

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 12:34 AM, Andrew wrote:
>>
>> Notice that the common myth isn't only unsupported in the United States.
>> But you won't click on any of these reference links, now will you.
>>
>
> I clicked, read and responded to the first links you posted.
> You never answered. At any rate, this is getting silly. You've
> said your piece. It's nonsense. You only attack rather than
> discuss with people. I'm beginning to think that you're a bot
> created by a consortium of car and cellphone makers.
>
> If you want to discuss ANYTHING you have to start by trying
> to be intellectually honest. You can't do that if you hold onto a
> vested interest in the outcome.

You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.

On 5/29/2024 11:22 AM, Chris wrote:

>
> You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
> posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
> discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
>

Arlen, really? How do people identify him?

On 2024-05-29 08:44, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 11:22 AM, Chris wrote:
>
>>
>> You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
>> posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
>> discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
>>
>
>  Arlen, really? How do people identify him?
>
>

From his manner of "speaking".

Honestly, I'm shocked that anyone COULDN'T recognize him.

On 2024-05-29 17:44, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 11:22 AM, Chris wrote:
>
>>
>> You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
>> posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
>> discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
>>
>
>  Arlen, really? How do people identify him?

We have correlated the identity Andrew with him months ago. He is made
many posts with it, the identification is easy.

He has several quirks of language. One is saying he speak facts, when
there are none in evidence. Another is insulting. If I see some new name
that insults me out of the blue, there are high chances that it is him.

He changes names often. He may refer to posts he made under another name.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 11:22 AM, Chris wrote:
>
>>
>> You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
>> posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
>> discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
>>
>
> Arlen, really? How do people identify him?

If an OP includes a diatribe or a grandiose statement plus belittling of
apple users, that'll be him.

In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 15:22:54 -0000 (UTC), Chris
<ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> On 5/29/2024 12:34 AM, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> Notice that the common myth isn't only unsupported in the United States.
>>> But you won't click on any of these reference links, now will you.
>>>
>>
>> I clicked, read and responded to the first links you posted.
>> You never answered. At any rate, this is getting silly. You've
>> said your piece. It's nonsense. You only attack rather than
>> discuss with people. I'm beginning to think that you're a bot
>> created by a consortium of car and cellphone makers.

LOL. Could be. Next generation of advertising!
>>
>> If you want to discuss ANYTHING you have to start by trying
>> to be intellectually honest. You can't do that if you hold onto a
>> vested interest in the outcome.
>
>You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
>posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
>discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
>
Could be. I usually don't get caught up in his stuff.

On 5/29/2024 12:05 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-29 08:44, Newyana2 wrote:

>>   Arlen, really? How do people identify him?
>>
> From his manner of "speaking".
>
> Honestly, I'm shocked that anyone COULDN'T recognize him.

Interesting. I just figure that the majority of people are
motivated by emotion, can't stand to be wrong, and don't
think very clearly. So I'm not surprised to see a new person
hold forth as an irrational hothead. I suppose that on the
bright side these discussions provide a chance to clarify
topics.

On 5/29/2024 12:48 PM, micky wrote:

>> You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
>> posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
>> discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
>>
> Could be. I usually don't get caught up in his stuff.
>

I've seen bot posts on Reddit. Usually I don't think of it until
someone points it out, then I realize that it probably is a bot
post. Then again, is there a difference between bots, marketing,
Chinese propagandists and Russian hackers? They're mostly only
identifiable by their viewpoint.

On 2024-05-29 10:21, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 12:05 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-29 08:44, Newyana2 wrote:
>
>>>   Arlen, really? How do people identify him?
>>>
>>  From his manner of "speaking".
>>
>> Honestly, I'm shocked that anyone COULDN'T recognize him.
>
>   Interesting. I just figure that the majority of people are
> motivated by emotion, can't stand to be wrong, and don't
> think very clearly. So I'm not surprised to see a new person
> hold forth as an irrational hothead. I suppose that on the
> bright side these discussions provide a chance to clarify
> topics.
>
>

Just take a look at the language; the phrasing.

In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 13:21:29 -0400, Newyana2
<newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>On 5/29/2024 12:05 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-05-29 08:44, Newyana2 wrote:
>
>>>   Arlen, really? How do people identify him?
>>>
>> From his manner of "speaking".
>>
>> Honestly, I'm shocked that anyone COULDN'T recognize him.
>
> Interesting. I just figure that the majority of people are
>motivated by emotion, can't stand to be wrong, and don't
>think very clearly. So I'm not surprised to see a new person
>hold forth as an irrational hothead. I suppose that on the
>bright side these discussions provide a chance to clarify
>topics.

That's sort of, almost, sort of the basis on which I rationalized my
posts, that it was an academic challenge to go to the core of the false
logic.

So I usad to practice my own arguments. It will help me in my run for
Congress this fall.

In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 13:25:00 -0400, Newyana2
<newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>On 5/29/2024 12:48 PM, micky wrote:
>
>>> You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
>>> posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
>>> discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
>>>
>> Could be. I usually don't get caught up in his stuff.
>>
>
> I've seen bot posts on Reddit. Usually I don't think of it until
>someone points it out, then I realize that it probably is a bot
>post. Then again, is there a difference between bots, marketing,
>Chinese propagandists and Russian hackers? They're mostly only
>identifiable by their viewpoint.

Come to think of it, bots could be valuable for Chinese and Russians.
You only have to teach English to one computer instead of a bunch of
people.

> Andrew wrote:
> How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
>
> It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in
the USA
>
> The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
> since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,

> namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c)
ticketing police.
>
> In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening
to the
> accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in
cellphone
> ownership in the United States?
>
https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year

>
> What do you see?
>
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf

>
> Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
>
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot

>
> What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone
days?
>
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/

>
> HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by
cellphones.

It is not a myth it is a fact. You get in the car
in no way you should answer that phone, unless your at a light and it
is
on speaker or your in park. Point being you could be distracted. You
might as well have a tablet-computer with a SIM-card
slot just for your car. Rather then you blasted phone. It is
distracting and not everybody have the ability to focus on the road
and some moron on the phone.

This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=665966706#665966706

Newyana2 wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 08:38:55 -0400 :

> An insurance company survey that found

While it's great that you're seeking to understand why it's a myth...

Bear in mind that I said that I've scoured the Internet for all the
available data, and I specifically stated three organizations who will
distort the facts for their own purpose of making money off of them.

1. Insurance companies (whose revenue is impacted)
2. Personal injury lawyers (whose revenue is impacted)
3. Ticketing agencies (such as police) whose revenue is impacted

If you think I haven't found EVERY source you can find, you're wrong.

Bear in mind you'll NEVER find a fact on the net I haven't found on this
topic, simply because I've scoured the net for at least a decade on it.

Given I'm years ahead of any of you on the fact-finding mission, my
challenge to anyone who wishes to dispute the myth is to find facts which
are NOT from those three agencies whose revenue directly benefits from
their propaganda spiels.

Think of it this way if you must...

If the only way you can support your viewpoint is to find ONLY companies
which directly benefit by making money off of your viewpoint, then how
valid is your viewpoint in the first place?

The US Census Bureau has reliable data.
And they don't make money off of that reliable data.

Think of it this way if you must...

If they only sources you can find are shills, then we agree it's a myth.

However, having said that, I'm happy you are one of the first people to
actually LOOK to see if the myth is a myth - and so far - you agree since
you can't find an un-biased source of data (yet) that agrees with the myth.

My challenge to you is to find a source of data that disagrees with the
myth that isn't also a shill (as defined long ago in this thread).

a. Not from insurance companies (because they shill for money)
b. Not from personal injury lawyers (who also shill for money)
c. Not from police (who greatly benefit from ticketing revenue)

Find it.
a. You cite it.
b. I'll read it.

But it can't be a shill.
Which means, you'll never find it.

But I commend you for trying.

micky wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 02:57:47 -0400 :

>>That's simply a fact.
>
> It's your opinion.

WTF?

How exactly is the accident rate compiled by the US Census an "opinion"?

Tell me... I'd like you to explain how that number, which has been reported
since the 1920s, well before cellphones existed, is merely an "opinion"?

Newyana2 wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 08:25:07 -0400 :

> If you want to discuss ANYTHING you have to start by trying
> to be intellectually honest. You can't do that if you hold onto a
> vested interest in the outcome.

I don't care what the "outcome" is, as I don't make any money off of
whether or not the accident rate is a high or low number.

I simply stated a fact.
I provided references which prove that fact.

The fact is simply the accident rate, which has been reported by the US
Census Bureau since around the 1920's, and nobody sensible disputes it.

So far, everyone who responded has merely said they hate the facts.
That's their entire argument.

I've provided the cites to the facts.
They provided nothing.

What's even more absurd, is micky said that facts are merely opinions.

Given that's been the response, you tell me how an intelligent discussion
is possible with those who simply hate that facts are being cited?

What facts do you cite, for example?
Cite them.

I'll read them.

Just don't cite bullshit statistics from the three entities who stand the
most money to gain from their propaganda which turn out to be shills.

If you have reliable facts, then cite them.
If you don't, then why do you disagree with the reliable facts?

On 2024-05-29, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-05-29 17:44, Newyana2 wrote:
>> On 5/29/2024 11:22 AM, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens
>>> of posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
>>> discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
>>
>>  Arlen, really? How do people identify him?
>
> We have correlated the identity Andrew with him months ago. He is made
> many posts with it, the identification is easy.
>
> He has several quirks of language. One is saying he speak facts, when
> there are none in evidence. Another is insulting. If I see some new
> name that insults me out of the blue, there are high chances that it
> is him.
>
> He changes names often. He may refer to posts he made under another
> name.

He also replies to his own posts with different names in order to give
the appearance his positions are more popular than they are.

--
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

In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 02:57:47 -0400, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 04:34:04 -0000 (UTC), Andrew
><andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Newyana2 wrote on Tue, 28 May 2024 09:23:55 -0400 :
>>
>>> So... you're saying it's fine to yap on your cellphone
>>> while driving -- or even while taming lions or mountain climbing --
>>> because accidents are directly connected to low intelligence.
>>> And you're most decidedly not a moron. You're a genius, by
>>> virtue of your science degree.
>>> And you're also a fatalist? All accidents are predestined. And
>>> somehow destiny has ruled that scientists don't get into accidents.
>>> Rather, accidents are Fate's way of punishing dumb people.
>>>
>>> That helps explain why you think that it's not dumb to ride a
>>> motorcycle: You have a science degree that prevents you from
>>> being hit by a truck. Now that you've clarified your logic, even
>>> halfwits like me can understand it.

Sorry. I'll grant that I was confusing here. My second line below was
written first, and it was clear, but then I wrote my first line."Most of
us here know that" which only addressed the accident rate, I guess, but
it had the effect of changing what my second line, It's your opinion,
seemed to refer to.

It's your opinion that cellphone usage had no measurable effect on the
accident rate.

Because you only look at the whole accident rate and you don't have the
data or you don't bother to look at the accident rate caused by cell
phones.

Or perhaps you think that whatever the amount of car damage, and the
number of injurie and deaths is so small, it's worth ridiculing. I
think no matter what the number is, it's important and efforts should be
made, and are being made, to lower them.

Good- bye

>>The only claim I'm making is that it's a myth that the cellphone saturation
>>rates going from 0% to nearly 100% in a few years had any measurable effect
>>on the accident rate trend in each of the 50 states in the United States.
>
>Most of us here know that
>>
>>That's simply a fact.
>
>It's your opinion.
>
>>If people don't like that fact, they can cite some other reliable agency
>>other than the US Census Bureau who reports US normalized accident rates.
>
>Or they can just semi-ignore your opinion, since you don't back it up
>with logic. Logical logic, that is. You have a few facts but you don't
>connect them sufficiently, and the ones you offer are not sufficent to
>support your opinion. Instead you just claim your conclusions are
>facts.
>>
>>They can also cite accident rates year over year in other countries.
>> <https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>
>>
>>Notice that the common myth isn't only unsupported in the United States.
>>But you won't click on any of these reference links, now will you.
>
>Myth has two meanings, the classic meaning of a narrative that explains
>something, and the more recent narrowed meaning of a specifically false
>narrative. I've forgotten what you say the myth is, but if it's too
>strong, of course it's not true. That's implied by the word "too". But
>if it's that cell phones cause a lot more accidents and deaths than they
>prevent, I'm sure that's true and you haven't convinced anyone here
>otherwise. You have given only the vaguest examples of how cell phones
>might lower the accident rate, and I don't think they do more than a
>teeny tiny bit. So all we have are the accidents they cause.
>
>Yet you're still posting about it with no additional logic or arguments.

micky wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 17:40:06 -0400 :

> Sorry. I'll grant that I was confusing here. My second line below was
> written first, and it was clear, but then I wrote my first line."Most of
> us here know that" which only addressed the accident rate, I guess, but
> it had the effect of changing what my second line, It's your opinion,
> seemed to refer to.
>
> It's your opinion that cellphone usage had no measurable effect on the
> accident rate.
>
> Because you only look at the whole accident rate and you don't have the
> data or you don't bother to look at the accident rate caused by cell
> phones.
>
> Or perhaps you think that whatever the amount of car damage, and the
> number of injurie and deaths is so small, it's worth ridiculing. I
> think no matter what the number is, it's important and efforts should be
> made, and are being made, to lower them.

My statement is simply one of fact. Well known fact. Reliable fact.
And, no, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. Supported by reliable cites.

If you believe that the accident rate in the USA has shown any direct
effect (either up or down) due to the tremendously different fact that
cellphones went from 0% saturation to nearly 100% in only a few years....

You're not going to find that supposed direct effect in the actual facts.
If you could, you would have by now.
Yet you didn't.
Because you can't.

You can't dispute facts by saying all facts you don't like don't exist.

Jolly Roger wrote on 29 May 2024 21:31:40 GMT :

> He also replies to his own posts with different names in order to give
> the appearance his positions are more popular than they are.

I know that most people are morons, Jolly Roger.

So I know the facts will be unpopular with most people, Jolly Roger.
a. Most people believe in the myth
b. Yet most people never check the facts

Which is ironic, actually.
A. Most people dispute the facts.
B. And yet, most people never question the myth.

The myth is that you'll see any evidence whatsoever of the supposed direct
first-order effect of cellphone saturation on the USA accident rate.

All the morons dispute that fact.
Yet none of the morons can find a single cite backing up their dispute.

You think I didn't know this would happen?
I'm trying to _teach_ you something, Jolly Roger.

You can't say all facts are not facts simply because you don't like them.

On 5/29/24 17:57, Andrew wrote:

> If you believe that the accident rate in the USA has shown any direct
> effect (either up or down) due to the tremendously different fact that
> cellphones went from 0% saturation to nearly 100% in only a few years....
>
> You're not going to find that supposed direct effect in the actual facts.

Technically that is correct because accident statistics limited to
reported accidents cannot in any way be linked to any data limited to
general cell-phone ownership. Yet legislators are nixing TV in the front
seat but not digital displays 'not necessary' to operation (replacing
necessary steam-gauge dials); they have climbed down from the tree and
are now walking on three, a few more miles to go.

On 2024-05-29, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 29 May 2024 21:31:40 GMT :
>
>> He also replies to his own posts with different names in order to
>> give the appearance his positions are more popular than they are.
>
> I know that most people are moronsi

Straight to the insults...

--
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