On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:44:05 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:03:50 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

There is quite a bit of information out there, using data from
accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter
of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be
problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes
I find it hard to believe.

I think the biggest problem is that the so-called answers are so simple,
that it's shocking that they don't actually make any logical sense.

For example, most of us *feel* that the accident rate must be going up,
but it's not going up.


I "feel" that you're an idiot and troll. K, now what? I guess we
have a PARADOX, PARADOX! What moron goes on "feelings" instead of
finding the actual scientific studies that were done?


Let's hope the two or three articles in that list that purport to shed
light on the paradox actually do so. They may simply be yet another
of the myriad tear jerker articles that sway dumb****s who have absolutely
no science background (and therefore no basis in pure logic) like
trader4 (who either is uneducated or just plain of low intelligence).

YOU are the idiot who came in here squawking PARADOX!, PARADOX!
without ever doing a simple google to find the actual studies on
cell phones and accidents. Without ever reading them, seeing what
data they used, how the studies were done, etc you just went with
the PARADOX claim. Finally, SeaNymph did
the simple search for you. That exposes you for the imbecile that
you obviously are, because you haven't even looked at the studies.
And note that YOU are the one so profoundly interested in this,
not the rest of us, yet you're too lazy to read the studies.
Nuff said, you've been exposed for the village idiot you are.