On 5/29/2024 11:48 AM, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 15:22:54 -0000 (UTC), Chris
> <ithinkiam@gmail.com> 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 also hesitate to do so, especially with this Arlen\Arlen character. I
have waited because he kept saying the real question to ask was "why"
something or another, and I wanted to give him the opportunity to
actually contribute something intelligent that he came up with. That
never happened. I have no idea what he does for a living, nor do I
care. But his continuous proclamation of being a scientist is quite
amusing. As we all know, what he really is is simply a troll, whose
motivation is another thing I couldn't care less about. All he deserves
is to be shunned and kill filed.

That said, there is so much wrong with this latest trolling of his it's
hard to find where to start. His entire premise of accident rates is
wrong from the start, though he appears to be figuring that out and
weaseling towards only distracted driving stats.

Accident should be going down since the whole world is buying modern
vehicles and our different governments are forcing automakers to provide
many new and innovative safety improvements. I'm not going to even list
any since all those "morons" Arlen refers to probably know lots of them.
You would also think that those idiots that get into accidents would
begin to make the rates go down since they've all wrecked their vehicles
and told their friends of their misfortune. That hasn't happened either.

The big problem with his ridiculous speculation is calling statistics
FACT. A real scientist would know they are not. His whole argument is
based on this lie. I'll quote some of the pertinent things from an
actual webpage so Arlen can't say I simply made this up.
"----
"A simple idea that helps explain a lot of disagreements is that there’s
a difference between a statistic and a fact, and it’s really hard to
tell the two apart."

"A statistic is just a number. And numbers are as easily manipulatable,
incomplete, and misleading as words are. But they’re more dangerous than
words, because numbers are associated with math, and math is
associatedwith fact."

"But facts are something special. Facts are complete and unbiased enough
to tell you something relevant to understanding the past or predicting
the future. They don’t care about your goals. They’re uninterested in your
politics. They’re not trying to tell your story. They don’t have quarterly
earnings expectations to meet. They drown themselves in context and explain
blunt-force reality in all its glory."
<https://collabfund.com/blog/the-difference-between-a-stat-and-a-fact/>
------

Now this next page gets right to the point of what is a fact, a
statistic, and data. A "Scientist" should know these things.

<https://www.statisticser.com/statistics-vs-facts/>
---------

Now I assume he'll say, "But it's awesome government statistical data.
It has to be trustworthy." So take a gander at the next page I'll link
to from the *National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.* I'll
quote the part showing the difficulties *SPECIFICALLY* to the collection
of *distracted driving* data.

"NHTSA recognizes that there are limitations to the collection and
reporting of FARS and CRSS data with regard to driver distraction. The
data collections for FARS and CRSS are based on PCRs (police crash
reports) and information gathered after the crashes have occurred."

"One noteworthy challenge for collection of distracted driving data is
the PCR itself. PCRs vary across jurisdictions, creating inconsistencies
in reporting. Many variables on the PCR are nearly universal, but
distraction is not one of those variables. Some PCRs identify
distraction as a distinct reporting field while others do not have such
a field and identification of distraction is based upon the narrative
portion of the report. This variation in reporting forms contributes to
variation in the reported number of distraction-affected crashes. Any
national or State count of distraction-affected crashes should be
interpreted with this limitation in mind due to potential underreporting
in some States and overreporting in others"

<https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813443>
------

The trolling part of this whole ridiculous argument he has for some
unknown reason (attention perhaps) started is unclear. But I guess I
too am a moron because I would certainly say it is an OBVIOUS truth that
using a cell phone is dangerous, for some groups of people more than
other, and that most people understand this naturally. Texting while
driving is unimaginable to me, yet I see it all the time. The fact that
most places are making laws to curtail the use of cell phones while
driving attests to that truth. All you have to do is get in a vehicle
and drive and every time you will see someone who is not paying
attention to the road, but instead is on the cell phone. It has changed
the way most people drive, having to always be on the lookout for those
idiots and have an escape route available. Especially motorcyclists
like me. Everybody sees it, everybody knows it, and everybody realizes
it's causing a lot of traffic accidents. Everybody except the
"scientist" Arlen the Troll.

--
Stand With Israel!

On 5/29/2024 2:53 PM, micky wrote:

> 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.
>

Your time may be better spent buying a machinegun and opposing
abortion. No one debates the issues anymore.

bad sector wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 19:30:36 -0400 :

>> 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.

Now you're beginning to use your head, which is a welcome change for all.

The fact is that there is no evidence in the reliable accident statistics
that the accident rate changed during the period of meteoric cellphone
ownership saturation levels. That's not an opinion. That's just a fact.

As you saw from the UConn cite, the unsupportable hysteria against
cellphone use has tricked people into thinking something that isn't.
<https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>

So there are really two issues to learn from this specific fact.
1. Cellphones aren't as dangerous as people think they are, and,
2. People will believe anything without ever checking the facts.

That's why the myth persists.

My goal here is to simply ask people to factcheck their own myths for once.

bad��sector wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 19:21:04 -0400 :

> They don't even have to be looking at the phone or at any display. I saw
> one idiot in whose car I was a passenger frequently eyeball two dashcam
> displays to see if he was recording good clips.

The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths
that have no basis in fact when you bother to doublecheck the facts.

The myth is that cellphones are so dangerous to use in a vehicle that the
accident rate must have skyrocketed (and then leveled off) during the
period that ownership rates went meteorically from 0% to almost 100%.

And yet... the fact is... nothing happened to the accident rate.

Danart wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 19:17:02 +0000 :

> 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.

The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths
that have no basis in fact when you bother to double check the facts.

The myth is that cellphones are so dangerous to use in a vehicle that the
accident rate must have skyrocketed (and then leveled off) during the
period that ownership rates went meteorically from 0% to almost 100%.

And yet... the fact is... nothing happened to the accident rate.
My goal is to merely state the facts.

And the fact is there is no effect visible in the reliable accident rate
statistics of the skyrocketing rise in cellphone ownership rates.

No adult can discuss that topic until they understand & agree with the
facts, and only then a healthy debate can ensue as to why that's a fact.

sticks wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 20:31:33 -0500 :

> The big problem with his ridiculous speculation is calling statistics
> FACT.

Adults back up their strongly held belief systems with facts, don't they?
Yet you backed up your belief systems with only ad hominem attacks.

Think about that.
a. You supplied zero facts, and yet you denied all facts you didn't like.
b. Then, worse, what you did supply was only ad hominem attacks.

I cited reliable facts which have been compiled for over a hundred years.
You cited none.

Yet you disputed all facts, simply because they don't fit your belief
system. Who does that? Think about that before responding, please.

Bear in mind, nobody disputes the accident rate statistics.
Nobody.

If they did, you would have supplied a cite showing that they did.
You can't.

Because nobody denies the accident rate facts who is a responsible adult.
The fact you simply denied that facts can exist is your entire argument.

The adult question to ponder, once you understand it, is if cellphone use
while driving is so dangerous, why does the accident rate not show that?

Jolly Roger wrote on 30 May 2024 00:49:26 GMT :

> Straight to the insults

You're the ones denying all facts simply because you don't like them.

The adult question to ponder, once you understand it, is if cellphone use
while driving is so dangerous, why does the accident rate not show that?

Newyana2 wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 22:39:54 -0400 :

> Your time may be better spent buying a machinegun and opposing
> abortion. No one debates the issues anymore.

Without taking sides on the issue... I will note the inconsistencies...

What's interesting is in the United States, the party platforms are not
self consistent on the taking of a life (whether almost born or later).

Democrat platform (paraphrased)...
a. It's fine to kill an unborn child with an abortion
b. It's not fine to kill a living person with a gun

Republican platform (paraphrased)...
a. It's not fine to kill an unborn child with an abortion
b. It's fine to kill a living person with a gun

Obviously those are paraphrased, but the point I'm making is neither
platform is self consistent, as a consistent platform might be instead...

A. It's not fine to kill an unborn child with an abortion
B. It's not fine to kill a living person with a gun

Or...

B. It's fine to kill a living person with a gun
A. It's fine to kill an unborn child with an abortion

The inconsistencies show, at least to me, they don't even believe in their
own words because if they cared about life, their platform would be
consistent.

It's not.

Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 11:51:28 +0200 :

> scientists do not insult other scientists that disagree with them.

Scientists provide reliable facts, which I provided, did I not?
Those reliable facts have been compiled for over a hundred years, Carlos.

Just because you don't like the facts, doesn't mean they're not facts.
Worse, you denied the facts simply because you don't like the facts.

That's not how scientists are supposed to act, Carlos.

The adult question to ponder, once you understand it, is if cellphone use
while driving is so dangerous, why does the accident rate not show that?

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> 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.
> If you could, you would have by now.
> Yet you didn't.
> Because you can't.

That's because you did.

> Take a look at the accident numbers for the entire world, by country.
> <https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>

If you select "accidents involving casualties" there clearly is a reversal
in the downward trend around 2010 in the US. The increasing trend continues
until covid and the latest data still shows greater numbers of accidents
since 2004.

Unsurprisingly - as it's typical of you - you didn't reply to my post where
I said this originally.

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

Likewise, and I've already told you this, absence of evidence is not proof
of evidence of absence.

Chris wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 06:34:27 -0000 (UTC) :

>> Take a look at the accident numbers for the entire world, by country.
>> <https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>
>
> If you select "accidents involving casualties" there clearly is a reversal
> in the downward trend around 2010 in the US. The increasing trend continues
> until covid and the latest data still shows greater numbers of accidents
> since 2004.

You don't get it that numbers of accidents isn't a valid metric.
It's the accident rate that matters since it's normalized properly.

Bear in mind accident-rate statistics have been compiled for a hundred
years and yet you dispute them only because you don't like what they are.

Do you know why you can't find statistics that back up your belief system?
I do.

They don't exist.

If they did exist, you'd find them.
And you haven't.

On 5/30/2024 12:06 AM, Andrew wrote:
> sticks wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 20:31:33 -0500 :
>
>> The big problem with his ridiculous speculation is calling statistics
>> FACT.
>
> Adults back up their strongly held belief systems with facts, don't they?
> Yet you backed up your belief systems with only ad hominem attacks.

Says the scientist who calls everyone else a moron.

> Think about that.
> a. You supplied zero facts, and yet you denied all facts you didn't like.

You mean like everything I supplied showing your bullcrap to be just
that? Of course you cut everything and responded to none of it.

> b. Then, worse, what you did supply was only ad hominem attacks.

Usenet is a special place. Calling out trolls is pretty common. You
should know since you are a troll and most people know it.

> I cited reliable facts which have been compiled for over a hundred years.
> You cited none.

That would be proof you didn't read what I posted.

> Yet you disputed all facts, simply because they don't fit your belief
> system. Who does that? Think about that before responding, please.

You don't have any facts, dipshit. That was the point of my post.

> Bear in mind, nobody disputes the accident rate statistics.
> Nobody.

Except for the NHTSA.

"NHTSA recognizes that there are limitations to the collection and
reporting of FARS and CRSS data with regard to driver distraction. The
data collections for FARS and CRSS are based on PCRs (police crash
reports) and information gathered after the crashes have occurred."

"One noteworthy challenge for collection of distracted driving data is
the PCR itself. PCRs vary across jurisdictions, creating inconsistencies
in reporting. Many variables on the PCR are nearly universal, but
distraction is not one of those variables. Some PCRs identify
distraction as a distinct reporting field while others do not have such
a field and identification of distraction is based upon the narrative
portion of the report. This variation in reporting forms contributes to
variation in the reported number of distraction-affected crashes. Any
national or State count of distraction-affected crashes should be
interpreted with this limitation in mind due to potential underreporting
in some States and overreporting in others"

That said, even if we could trust the gubmint to have reliable
statistics, they're still not a fact. Statistics are a tool. Did you
miss this part too?

"A statistic is just a number. And numbers are as easily manipulatable,
incomplete, and misleading as words are. But they’re more dangerous than
words, because numbers are associated with math, and math is associated
with fact."

> If they did, you would have supplied a cite showing that they did.
> You can't.

Don't have to. You did.

> Because nobody denies the accident rate facts who is a responsible adult.

Except the HHTSA...

> The fact you simply denied that facts can exist is your entire argument.

Nope, my argument is that using statistics as if they are fact is not
something a scientist should be doing. They are no such thing. I've
pointed out why.

> The adult question to ponder, once you understand it, is if cellphone use
> while driving is so dangerous, why does the accident rate not show that?

round and round and round and round.

--
Stand With Israel!

sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 09:22:31 -0500 :

> Of course you cut everything and responded to none of it.

Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief systems?

On 5/30/2024 9:57 AM, Andrew wrote:
> sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 09:22:31 -0500 :
>
>> Of course you cut everything and responded to none of it.
>
> Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief systems?

I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a troll.
Of course, everyone already knows that.

--
Stand With Israel!

On 2024-05-29 22:16, Andrew wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 11:51:28 +0200 :
>
>> scientists do not insult other scientists that disagree with them.
>
> Scientists provide reliable facts, which I provided, did I not?

1. That is a fallacious way of defining what a scientist is.

2. No. You didn't.

> Those reliable facts have been compiled for over a hundred years, Carlos.
>
> Just because you don't like the facts, doesn't mean they're not facts.
> Worse, you denied the facts simply because you don't like the facts.
>
> That's not how scientists are supposed to act, Carlos.
>
> The adult question to ponder, once you understand it, is if cellphone use
> while driving is so dangerous, why does the accident rate not show that?

Everyone gets that this is Arlen, right?

On 2024-05-29 22:09, Andrew wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 30 May 2024 00:49:26 GMT :
>
>> Straight to the insults
>
> You're the ones denying all facts simply because you don't like them.
>
> The adult question to ponder, once you understand it, is if cellphone use
> while driving is so dangerous, why does the accident rate not show that?

Because there are other factors at play, you moron.

On 2024-05-29 21:53, Andrew wrote:
> bad������sector wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 19:21:04 -0400 :
>
>> They don't even have to be looking at the phone or at any display. I saw
>> one idiot in whose car I was a passenger frequently eyeball two dashcam
>> displays to see if he was recording good clips.
>
> The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths
> that have no basis in fact when you bother to doublecheck the facts.
>
> The myth is that cellphones are so dangerous to use in a vehicle that the
> accident rate must have skyrocketed (and then leveled off) during the
> period that ownership rates went meteorically from 0% to almost 100%.
>
> And yet... the fact is... nothing happened to the accident rate.

And yet... ...the fact is...

....that you don't understand that a complex system involving multiple
factors cannot be so easily parsed.

Only a moron doesn't understand that.

sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :

>> Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief systems?
>
> I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
> up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a troll.
> Of course, everyone already knows that.

Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief system.

The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is that the
imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any reliable cites.

The accident rate (slowly trending downward) did not show any effect
whatsoever from the skyrocketing saturation of cellphones in the USA.

Those who think it did are simply wrong, and the proof is none of them has
provided even a single cite that backs up their belief in the myth.

In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 20:31:33 -0500, sticks
<wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

Another reason I think I engaged with him more than once is that there
is so little traffic on usenet these days and I miss the conversations.
Sort of like, "When you can't be with the one you love, love the one
you're with." except this is, When you can't have a converstaion with
the one who has good idess, converse with the one you've got.
>
>The trolling part of this whole ridiculous argument he has for some
>unknown reason (attention perhaps) started is unclear. But I guess I
>too am a moron because I would certainly say it is an OBVIOUS truth that
>using a cell phone is dangerous, for some groups of people more than
>other, and that most people understand this naturally. Texting while
>driving is unimaginable to me, yet I see it all the time. The fact that

Unimaginable to me too, and somehow I never see it. I only drive about
5000 miles a year, but that is still half of what I used to. Maybe I
pay "too much" attention to the road ahead of me.

I also heard on the radio that people can smell marijuana while driving,
even from other cars, but even though I have my top down about half the
year, and with the top down every farm and factory smell is quickly
noticeable, I've never smelled any. Well, my nose has never been very
sensitive.

One think I saw one night, wouldn't thave noticed it in the day time,
was a movie playing on the rear view mirror of the guy I caught up to at
a red-light. Another bad idea. They should show Bullett and that
would really confuse the driver.

Another problem is that more and more newer cars have built-in bluetooh
so they already have hands-free. Even buttons on the steering wheel to
answer the phone with. The temptation is there, but I can tell that
even hands-free, the phone is a distraction that the radio is not. When
I'm concentrating on the traffic (or what I'm doing on the computer), I
don't even hear the radio. When I first got a computer, a whole
half-hour tv show played and I didn't notice any of it. But the phone
is different -- you have to reply.

I have a 2005 car but for not much money, I added hands-free, because
other people had it and so I wanted it too. It plugs into the back of
the car radio and uses the satellite-capability of this high-end car
radio. The sound come out of all the car's speaker and they provided a
microphone whose wire goes up the A-pillar and sits at the top, and I've
called my phone machine to see about the sound and the fidelity is good
and there is no traffic noise. But I barely use it, once every 6
months.

I've only had about 4 phone conversations while driving. One was when I
was abroad and it was important, about a room I wanted to rent, so I
could stop living in the rental car. The traffic was heavy and I pulled
over right away, and realized I was right outside a prison whose wall
was only 8 feet from the road. I might have looked suspecious to
prison guards.
One was a call from my doctor's office to schedule an important
appointment. I was driving across a bridge with no shoulder, in the
rain iirc, when the office called.
The first call I ever had, I went slowly on small side streets and I
could tell my concentration was distracted.

OTOH I have one friend who spends a lot of time at work and has loads of
other things to do, horse-riding, construction on his mini-farm. So the
only time he has to call me, at home, is when he's driving back from one
of his clients, and he often does, maybe once every month or two. He
hasn't had any accidents. And I called my next-door neighbor last
week. He only has a cellphone so I don't know where he is when I call.
We were talking about the water leak in my basement -- his house is just
like mine -- and eventually I asked, and he was driving back from
visiting family an hour away, so he had plenty time to talk. Should I
refuse to talk to people who are driving?

I have another friend who calls me when she's walking, and I've tried to
walk at the same time, but I can't concentrate on the phone call and
walking at the same time.

>most places are making laws to curtail the use of cell phones while
>driving attests to that truth. All you have to do is get in a vehicle
>and drive and every time you will see someone who is not paying
>attention to the road, but instead is on the cell phone. It has changed
>the way most people drive, having to always be on the lookout for those
>idiots and have an escape route available. Especially motorcyclists
>like me. Everybody sees it, everybody knows it, and everybody realizes
>it's causing a lot of traffic accidents. Everybody except the
>"scientist" Arlen the Troll.

On 30/05/2024 08:36, Andrew wrote:
> Chris wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 06:34:27 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> Take a look at the accident numbers for the entire world, by country.
>>> <https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>
>>
>> If you select "accidents involving casualties" there clearly is a reversal
>> in the downward trend around 2010 in the US. The increasing trend continues
>> until covid and the latest data still shows greater numbers of accidents
>> since 2004.
>
> You don't get it that numbers of accidents isn't a valid metric.
> It's the accident rate that matters since it's normalized properly.

The numbers have gone up 28% between 2011 and 2016. Do you really
believe that's driven by something else??

> Bear in mind accident-rate statistics have been compiled for a hundred
> years and yet you dispute them only because you don't like what they are.
>
> Do you know why you can't find statistics that back up your belief system?
> I do.
>
> They don't exist.
>
> If they did exist, you'd find them.
> And you haven't.

So taking the data from OECD and normalising by the population and miles
driven data from IIHS, both sources being ones you've recommended, the
accident rate has rapidly increased since 2010. NB: the iphone was
launched in 2007.
https://ibb.co/tpXpCDY

Still believe the data doesn't exist?

On 5/30/2024 12:43 PM, Andrew wrote:
> sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :
>
>>> Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief systems?
>>
>> I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
>> up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a troll.
>> Of course, everyone already knows that.
>
> Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief system.

Disregarding the stuff you snipped as usual in your responses, I guess
you cannot understand the one you replied to above. I'll repeat it and
see if you can understand it this time. Read it slowly, might help.

"I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a troll.
Of course, everyone already knows that."

> The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is that the
> imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any reliable cites.

Nah, I'm just not interested in this topic you created so you could call
everybody other than you a moron. The whole thing is dumb.

--
Stand With Israel!

On 2024-05-30, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
> On 5/30/2024 12:43 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :
>>
>>>> Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief
>>>> systems?
>>>
>>> I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you
>>> made up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a
>>> troll. Of course, everyone already knows that.
>>
>> Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief
>> system.
>
> Disregarding the stuff you snipped as usual in your responses, I guess
> you cannot understand the one you replied to above. I'll repeat it
> and see if you can understand it this time. Read it slowly, might
> help.
>
> "I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
> up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a troll.
> Of course, everyone already knows that."
>
>> The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is that
>> the imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any reliable
>> cites.
>
> Nah, I'm just not interested in this topic you created so you could
> call everybody other than you a moron. The whole thing is dumb.

It's fascinating how much time and effort he expends doing this. He
spends hours and hours ever day doing this exact same thing in multiple
newsgroups. It must be exhausting. I'd feel sorry for him, but he does
it willingly.

--
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

On 5/30/2024 5:29 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2024-05-30, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 5/30/2024 12:43 PM, Andrew wrote:
>>> sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :
>>>
>>>>> Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief
>>>>> systems?
>>>>
>>>> I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you
>>>> made up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a
>>>> troll. Of course, everyone already knows that.
>>>
>>> Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief
>>> system.
>>
>> Disregarding the stuff you snipped as usual in your responses, I guess
>> you cannot understand the one you replied to above. I'll repeat it
>> and see if you can understand it this time. Read it slowly, might
>> help.
>>
>> "I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
>> up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a troll.
>> Of course, everyone already knows that."
>>
>>> The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is that
>>> the imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any reliable
>>> cites.
>>
>> Nah, I'm just not interested in this topic you created so you could
>> call everybody other than you a moron. The whole thing is dumb.
>
> It's fascinating how much time and effort he expends doing this. He
> spends hours and hours ever day doing this exact same thing in multiple
> newsgroups. It must be exhausting. I'd feel sorry for him, but he does
> it willingly.

What is also fascinating is the amount of time and effort people put
into replying to every topic he starts. He only does this because he
knows "the usual suspects" will reply. He is pulling the strings and
you willingly dance for him.

That's what trolls do. Start LOTS of absurd topics to get attention.

Unless you genuinely like to argue with idiots, just ignore him. It is
very easy to do.

On 5/30/24 00:53, Andrew wrote:
> bad������sector wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 19:21:04 -0400 :
>
>> They don't even have to be looking at the phone or at any display. I saw
>> one idiot in whose car I was a passenger frequently eyeball two dashcam
>> displays to see if he was recording good clips.
>
> The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths
> that have no basis in fact when you bother to doublecheck the facts.

There's a dividing line you seem to be confused about, the one between
science and belief, the two equally are important realms that are by
definition mutually exclusive of one another. The latter tries to
process issues that the former is incapable of resolving. To think that
all that is is what we 'know' in the folly of many. I once read a
perfect example of this when an astronomer (of all people!) said "we
cannot find dark matter so it does not exist".

On 2024-05-30, Nick Charles <Nick> wrote:
> On 5/30/2024 5:29 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2024-05-30, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/30/2024 12:43 PM, Andrew wrote:
>>>> sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :
>>>>
>>>>>> Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief
>>>>>> systems?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you
>>>>> made up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're
>>>>> a troll. Of course, everyone already knows that.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief
>>>> system.
>>>
>>> Disregarding the stuff you snipped as usual in your responses, I
>>> guess you cannot understand the one you replied to above. I'll
>>> repeat it and see if you can understand it this time. Read it
>>> slowly, might help.
>>>
>>> "I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you
>>> made up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a
>>> troll. Of course, everyone already knows that."
>>>
>>>> The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is
>>>> that the imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any
>>>> reliable cites.
>>>
>>> Nah, I'm just not interested in this topic you created so you could
>>> call everybody other than you a moron. The whole thing is dumb.
>>
>> It's fascinating how much time and effort he expends doing this. He
>> spends hours and hours ever day doing this exact same thing in
>> multiple newsgroups. It must be exhausting. I'd feel sorry for him,
>> but he does it willingly.
>
> What is also fascinating is the amount of time and effort people put
> into replying to every topic he starts. He only does this because he
> knows "the usual suspects" will reply. He is pulling the strings and
> you willingly dance for him.
>
> That's what trolls do. Start LOTS of absurd topics to get attention.
>
> Unless you genuinely like to argue with idiots, just ignore him. It
> is very easy to do.

Apparently you missed the part where he regularly changes his name to
avoid filters as well as cross posting to troll newsgroups. You may not
care when people spread disinformation and lies in the Apple news
groups, but others do. I've refrained from responding to his shit posts,
but inevitably someone else responds to correct his lies. And those
people aren't the problem. I know you'd like to think they are, but the
troll is the real problem here.

--
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