Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #141425 > unrolled thread

It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-25 14:29 +0000
    Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-25 08:10 -0700
      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-05-25 18:28 +0200
        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-26 06:22 +0000
    Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-25 13:34 -0400
      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-26 00:40 +0000
        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-25 21:48 -0400
          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-26 05:58 +0000
            Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-26 18:41 -0400
              Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-27 00:45 +0000
        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-29 11:51 +0200
          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 05:16 +0000
            Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-30 10:17 -0700
    Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 11:38 +0000
      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-26 09:32 -0400
      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-26 14:01 +0000
        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-26 14:05 +0000
        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 15:15 +0000
          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-26 14:41 -0700
          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-26 19:36 -0400
          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-28 04:59 +0000
            Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-28 09:23 -0400
              Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) - 2024-05-29 00:30 +0000
                Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 05:05 +0000
                  Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 08:38 -0400
                    Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 20:43 +0000
                Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 05:07 +0000
              Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 04:34 +0000
                Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-29 02:57 -0400
                  Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 21:10 +0000
                  Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-29 17:40 -0400
                    Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 21:57 +0000
                      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-05-29 19:30 -0400
                        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 03:36 +0000
                      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 06:34 +0000
                        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 07:36 +0000
                          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 19:14 +0100
                            Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:38 +0000
                              Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-06-01 23:02 +0000
                Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 08:25 -0400
                  Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 15:22 +0000
                    Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 11:44 -0400
                      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-29 09:05 -0700
                        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 13:21 -0400
                          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-29 10:34 -0700
                          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-29 14:53 -0400
                            Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 22:39 -0400
                              Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 05:14 +0000
                      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-29 18:31 +0200
                        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-29 21:31 +0000
                          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 22:05 +0000
                            Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-30 00:49 +0000
                              Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 05:09 +0000
                                Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-30 10:18 -0700
                      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 16:44 +0000
                    Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-29 12:48 -0400
                      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 13:25 -0400
                        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-29 14:55 -0400
                          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) - 2024-05-29 19:17 +0000
                            Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 04:58 +0000
                          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA ollie <ollie@privacy.me> - 2024-06-18 11:17 +0200
                      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-05-29 20:31 -0500
                        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 05:06 +0000
                          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-05-30 09:22 -0500
                            Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 14:57 +0000
                              Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-05-30 11:43 -0500
                                Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 17:43 +0000
                                  Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-05-30 15:37 -0500
                                    Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-30 21:29 +0000
                                      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Nick Charles - 2024-05-30 18:21 -0400
                                        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-31 16:27 +0000
                                  Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Norm <norm@slbglobal.net> - 2024-06-18 08:26 +0000
                          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-06-18 06:48 -0400
                            Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-06-18 17:15 +0000
                        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-30 13:53 -0400
                  Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 21:15 +0000
      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-26 14:39 -0700
      Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA bad💽sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-05-26 19:21 -0400
        Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 04:53 +0000
          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-30 10:22 -0700
          Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA bad💽sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-05-30 21:42 -0400
            Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-06-02 03:01 +0000
              Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA bad💽sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-06-01 23:42 -0400
              Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:29 +0000

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#142102

On 29 May 2024, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> posted some
news:ifue5jpm5aafaccck2dvnn3ag7vndqttvq@4ax.com: 

> 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. 

It helps greatly if they can speak what they "teach" first.

Watch for bot generated headlines in ABC and CBS AI generated content.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141605

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!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141611

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141625

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!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141626

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141630

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!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141635

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141647

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!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141648

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141650

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141661

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142101

On 30 May 2024, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> posted some
news:v3adr4$138m$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com: 

> 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. 

That same logic applies to gun ownership.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142104 — Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise

On 5/30/24 01:06, 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?

No, facts are the basis of knowledge; meanwhile wishes, suspicions, and 
to some extent statistics are the basis of beliefs. The uninsured, the 
criminals fearing capture, plus most of the low-damage accident actors 
simply do NOT report an accident so that pool is misleading. Once you 
know something it becomes a fact and gets removed from the beliefs 
drawer and conversely until you know something it can be only in the 
beliefs drawer. Nothing can be in both concurrently.

Overall statistical accident rates could only rise due to cell-phone use 
IF all other causes remained fixed; a la-la entry in real life where all 
causes have a dynamic effect so it is quite possible for electronic 
bells and whistles like blind-spot alerts to reduce their part in 
accidents while cell phones increase theirs resulting in no overall 
statistical increase! Furthermore cell-phone use is categorised under 
distractions and that cause is in fact on the rise even if other causes 
are decreasing.


https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving




-- 
All species of mobile phones, media devices, Bluetooth or not, and 
onboard presentation systems beyond what is essential for vehicle 
control should automatically disable themselves within 10 meters of any 
vehicle in motion at any speed. Hands-Free does NOT mean Brain-Free. In 
the case of approaching vehicles (pedestrian use included) that distance 
should be multiplied (prorated) for every 5 km/h of CLOSURE speed (i.e. 
no such device should be operable within 200 meters of any vehicle 
approaching at 100 km/h). Manufacturers of devices in which such an 
automatic lockout feature is missing or can be disabled should first pay 
large fines and then be barred from the jurisdiction market. With 
respect to other road-hog conduct, in addition to intoxication or 
attention-diverting use of lethal-technology while driving, 
brake-checking and tailgating should also be HANGING crimes. Any 
irresponsible vehicle handling should in fact be punished exactly as it 
would be in the case of irresponsible weapons handling (which ALSO needs 
to be beefed up).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142109 — Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise

bad sector wrote on Tue, 18 Jun 2024 06:48:14 -0400 :

> https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving

You're clearly not educated as a scientist is educated.
That link says NOTHING that detracts from my statement of fact.

My statement of fact is that the accident record shows absolutely no change
whatsoever in the reliably reported accident rates for all fifty states in
the United States when you look at the periods before, during and after the
meteoric rise of cellphone ownership from 0% to nearly 100% today.

I get it that most people believe in every myth in the book. 
I get it that most people think the accident rate must have gone up.

Hell, even I, a trained scientist, would have thought it would have.
But it didn't.

The difference between stupid people and someone intelligent is that an
intelligent person is able to separate baseless myths from facts.

Nobody said that distracted driving wasn't the leading cause of accidents.
Nobody said cellphones were an *added* distraction.

Nobody said driving does not entails handline hundreds of distractions.

What I said was there is zero evidence that cellphones had any effect
whatsoever (up or down) on the accident rate, which has been reliably
reported by the US Census Bureau since well before any of us were born.

What just happened is you're so incredibly *desperate* to believe in the
baseless myth that you googled furiously and couldn't find even a single
cite of fact that disputes that fact. I knew that would happen.

While I'm surprised you did not cite bullshit insurance, lawyer and
ticketing agency cites, and while I commend you for at least citing the
NHSA, don't you think I've scoured the Internet for all known cites?

You think I'm stupid?
I'm not.

I'm extremely well educated in the sciences and in engineering.
I know full well how desperate uneducated people are to believe in myths.

You believe in a myth that has zero basis in actual fact.
You think I don't know that about you?

I knew you will never find a single reliable cite backing up your belief.
Because your entire belief system isn't based on any actual facts.

You believe in a baseless myth.
You cited a site that says nothing to dispute the facts.
 <https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving>

All it says is what nobody disagrees with, which is that driving entails
handling hundreds (probably thousands!) of distractions. 

Nobody said it didn't.
That NHTSA cite doesn't say anything about the facts I speak of.
That's because they *know* the facts (far better than you do, in fact).

What I said was that there is no change whatsoever in the accident rates
before, during and after cellphones skyrocketed.

Which is a fact you can't deny simply because it's a well-known fact.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141636

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141593

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141469

On 2024-05-26 04:38, badgolferman wrote:
> Andrew <andrew@spam.net> 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.
>>
> 
> 
> As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that
> also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me. That
> means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if
> their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are
> unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive
> maneuvers if necessary.

Yes... ...but are you a "trained scientist"?


😜

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141474

On 5/26/24 07:38, badgolferman wrote:
> Andrew <andrew@spam.net> 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.
>>
> 
> 
> As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that
> also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me. That
> means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if
> their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are
> unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive
> maneuvers if necessary.
> 
> Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can confidently
> assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted because they are
> looking at their phones. This doesn’t mean they are going to be an accident
> statistic, but it does mean they are a menace to other drivers with their
> erratic driving.
> 
> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of traffic,
> instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front of them. This has
> the effect of pissing off people behind them who try their damnest to get
> around them. Distracted drivers can’t stay in their lane, leading to other
> drivers having to avoid them. Distracted drivers fail to go when the
> traffic light turns green and cause cars farther back to miss the light
> cycle and wait again for the green light. There are many more examples, but
> you get the picture. Surely you can add more.
> 
> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to say what
> you want. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but accident rate is not the
> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone drivers have
> on other drivers. The accident rate can also be influenced by the increased
> amount of drivers as opposed to the amount of accidents. And it’s also hard
> to determine how many of those actual accidents were the result of
> distracted driving or some other factor. I’d wager distracted drivers
> caused a far higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one
> will admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red
> light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.

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. Motor cycles are small 
and less visible but while someone is talking *even on bluetooth* ITS 
*MIND is NOT free* though that part of the watch is relegated to the 
subconscious which can be very slow and superfluous (that's how some 
people in dire staits can drive asleep with eyes open, been there).

In addition to *patience and courtesy* defensive driving requires 
continuous scanning and attention, always looking at spots that are 
hidden because THAT's where surprises will erupt from right into your 
face in a fraction of a second. After stopping distance issues, the 
second problem in tailgaiting is that you don't see 80% of what's in 
front of you! Suddenly low and narrow section motorbike image fragments 
flash briefly where you don't even have enough time to see and react to 
a two-story high cement truck. The biker pays with his life. If I were 
riding a bike I'd watch for drivers whose heads on not moving all the time.

A good exercise is watching u-tube videos, trying to hit the instant 
when you know that it's gonna happen; also noting the beady-eyed 
low-brow darwin awarders refusing to yield because they have the right 
of way to someone tryin to merge too late for any number of reasons. Not 
surprisingly they seem completely pucking clueless about the fact that 
all kinds of people use the road including some who have just lost their 
job a parent or a child, whose doctor has just told them they have a few 
month at the most or are going to a funeral if not just passively having 
a freakin stroke. The "I have the right of way" chest pounding ape show 
and the grand-prix belong somewehere else, NOT on public roads.

Unfortunately the money beast doesn't want us to spend eight hours on 
the road when even then we could instead be shopping and producing 
profits so the future that we have to prepare to trip-up is the one in 
which computer driven cars follow each other ten feet apart at 200 while 
all occumpants are tele-gossiping, shopping or watching pornos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141609

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141633

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web