"Mike" wrote in message
news:9o1uk.48$sq3.13@trnddc07...

I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of
conclusions for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical
thought.

Liar.


By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such conclusions
either way. Attempting to do so is childish.

Liar, just a simple minded attempt at a troll, Mikey Mouth.


Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in
economic terms".

Change of subject there Mxmanic Jr.


Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis would
certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason to suspect
theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why I prefer
letting people like you do their own research. When proof is provided,
you want to poke holes in it by bringing up countless what if scenarios
that are irrelevant, if not to the point of ridicule. It simply shows
that when faced with evidence you can't refute on a reasonable level, you
will just resort to the unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change
your mind. So why should I waste my time providing proof of something
you're never going to accept anyway?

You should have some Mexican feista music running for a hat dance like this
one.



Nor do I care really.

Yeah, not give a **** about anything or anybody is a big part of you life,
isn't it?


Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once have
I advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do you have a
clue about my motivations or what I support or don't.

For someone that doesn't care about what other do or do not support, you
sure waste a lot of time talking **** on a public forum.