Yup. And when the police shoot an unarmed man "in the torso", which means, "in the back".
Or when Commissioner Davis hailed as a "ferocious firefight" the "gun battle" with an unarmed, unresisting, and prostrate Boston bomber, hiding i n the hull of a boat.
Or, when Governor Cuomo haled what amounts to a cowardly sniper as a "hero" , so as to take public scrutiny away from the fact that the officer committed
what amounts to a criminal act of sniping.
You are an amazing idiot.
In fact, you are a poster child for idiots to marvel at.
You don't even *look* before sputtering that any fact you don't happen to like is untrue.
Yyou work completely off of your opinions, facts be damned. You're so very wrong so very often that I wonder if you're ever right.
Australian ABF Pilot Training Manual
Flight Safety Australia September-October 2012
Australian Flight Simulator Software Description
Algeria Horan wrote
What a stunning line in adult conversation you have there, hypocrite.
That isnt a fact and I don?t like or dislike it either.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
Says the clown who has just made a very spectacular fool of itself waving around completely irrelevant stats of what happens with CARS STOPPED AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS.
Not one of which ever says anything like 'Aviate, navigate, communicate'
Per nospam:
The cell phone in the hand is not what I see first.
What I see first is the wandering from lane-to-lane... *Then* I take a look to see what's going on and see the phone. I can't ever recall seeing a person being conversed with... it's always the phone.
Per FromTheRafters:
On my Android phone, when I'm in handsfree mode, when a call comes in, it says "call from (contact)", say "answer or ignore".
If I say Answer, it answers. If not, it doesn't answer it.
This all goes over bluetooth on my visor-mounted speaker.
Pretty simple stuff.
Sophistry is a bit complex, but it stemmed from a group of people who could debate either side of the argument, using, of course, false examples, as on e technique, to sway Athenian juries (which were huge).
With respect to mobile phone arguments, sophistry abounds.
I don't know if it is ever applied, as I had simply noted it as being "crazy" when I first mentioned it (before Rod Speed went on his childish tangent).
Whether or not it's actually applied, it does seem overboard, which is, as
you'll note, why I pointed to it saying it's crazy.
What's odd, to me (and I presume to you also), is "why" Alaska voters would allow such a ridiculous law to ever get in place.
What's different about Alaska that a nominal 10,000 fine for a first offens e for texting makes any sense in terms of judicial balance?
(Anyone here understand Alaskans well enough to answer that?)
The exact phrase is in *every* one of them. Again, all you're proving is that you don't look at facts.
You just make everything up.
Wrong, as always.
Those arent TAUGHT, f****it.
(PeteCresswell) formulated the question :
Yep, a very good example.
You mean this? -- While *facts* are a real distraction in the car and their use can result in serious accidents, real life accident data indicates that use of *facts* does not contribute significantly to crashes or fatalities.
You must be out of your mind :-0 . Cheers, -- tlvp
How would folks text on a cellphone "without actually holding it in their hands", eh? And with what, "holding it in their hands", would they control the steering wheel? Earth to A,H., earth to A.H., come in, please ... :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
Heh heh heh ...
Congresswoman discusses government task for that recommends that the NSA stop collecting phone records, and the Washington DC msnbc correspondent breaks in saying "Right now, in Miami, Justin Bieber...let's watch".
Heh heh heh ...
We're doomed. :(
The methods used by the NHTSA were described in the reference, and they listed the many limitations, so, I refer you back to the paper for that answer.
Your question brings up a *major* point, which is that people don't understand the references.
They jump to wild and fantastic fabrications as to what the references actually proved, and how they proved it.
That is, I suspect, one of the major components of the easily disproven yet still immensely common myth that cellphone use "causes" appreciable accidents in the real world (in the US and Australia).
The more you try to prove you're NOT an idiot, the more you prove you are...
I don't know. But according to Exxon, in "About octane ratings", see , "Octane rating is a measure of a fuel's ability to resist 'knock'. ... The higher the octane number the greater the fuel's resistance to knocking or pinging during combustion."
'Zat help? Cheers (and YvW), -- tlvp
tlvp wrote
By using siri and the other equivalents on androids.
The other hand. Did it myself on saturday when the neckband headset stopped working because it wouldn't charge.
Algeria Horan wrote
Yep, you clearly don?t.
Yep, you did just that. That one was JUST about what happens with CARS STOPPED AT THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS, and you stupidly made all sorts of wild claims that it said anything useful about what drivers do with the cellphones WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED.
How odd that you haven't managed to do anything of the sort.
Even that reference you stupidly posted actually proves that f*ck all are actually stupid enough to use a cellphone while DRIVING AT SPEED since it must be only a small percentage of those who have been observed to use the cellphone WHEN STOPPED AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS etc, and even if say
10% of those do have an accident as a result of that stupidity, that would mean that less than 1% of drivers would have an accident due to the use of a cellphone WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED and that is such a small number that that would be completely invisible in the total accident stats in the USA.It isnt a myth, it?s a fact with a number accidents PROVEN to have been caused by the use of a cellphone WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED.
We know that that has happened from the accident investigation, you silly little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.