You can bet the very rich and powerful will be sitting in the rear seat of the limos making and taking calls while I cup the phone to my head and keep both hands on the steering wheel (or get super dark window tinting...). Viva La 4th of July!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NATIONAL HEADLINES

Poll: Texans want drivers to hang up cell phones

By ANNA M. TINSLEY Scripps Howard News Service July 03, 2000

AUSTIN, Texas - Ninety-two percent of Texans say talking on the phone while driving is dangerous and more than half want the legislature or local governments to ban cell phone use for motorists, according to The Scripps Howard Texas Poll.

Even so, 52 percent of Texans own a cellular phone and 57 percent use those phones at least once a week while driving.

"Driving while talking on the phone is a dangerous practice," said James Katz, a professor at Rutgers University who studies public attitudes toward cell phone use and other technologies. "It distracts a driver from the road. It's like having three or four drinks and then getting behind the wheel."

The convenience of cell phones helped the market grow from 91,600 users in 1985 to more than 94 million this year, according to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association.

But a 1997 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that those who talk on a phone while driving are four times more likely to have an accident than those who don't.

That was followed by a 1998 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report, which concluded that talking on a wireless phone while driving increases the risk of a crash.

Cell phone industry officials oppose laws restricting the use of phones, saying police already have the authority to pull over anyone causing a hazard on the road for reckless driving.

Dozens of communities are considering banning cell phone use while driving.

Already more than a dozen countries from Germany to Japan have banned phone use while driving. New York City bans cab drivers from using cell phones on the job. And Aspen, Colo., bans all but hands-free phones while driving.

But Brooklyn, Ohio, is believed to be the first to ticket motorists for using hand-held cell phones while driving. The Cleveland suburb, population 11,000, prohibits use of a cell phone while driving unless both hands are on the steering wheel.

Exceptions are made for emergency calls, using a phone in a parked car or using a speakerphone.

Police have issued about 250 tickets for violating the ban since Sept. 1, 1999, said Peggy Hovan, secretary for Brooklyn Police Chief Jack Murphy.

The fine for a first-time offender is $3. The second ticket lands a driver in court facing a fine range that stretches to $100.

The poll was conducted May 22 to June 16 by the E.W. Scripps Data Center. The sample of 1,000 adult Texans has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points.

-- I Never (inevercheckmy@onebox.com), July 03, 2000

Answers

CRETIN. A DRIVER SHOULD NOT USE A CELL PHONE while driving anymore than he/she should watch TV or play bridge or in your case, jerk off!!!

THE PEOPLE WANT THIS STOPPED, IMBECILE!!!

**********........ITS DANGEROUS......***********

By your thinking 92% of the people who responded to this are "sheeple". -READ IT:

QUOTE:

Ninety-two percent of Texans say talking on the phone while driving is dangerous and more than half want the legislature or local governments to ban cell phone use for motorists, according to The Scripps Howard Texas Poll.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 03, 2000.

I think people driving while talking on phones are dangerous and should be ticketed. I was nearly run off the roads by one of these idiots.

I have a friend who loves to wander all over the road while blabbing on one of these non-essential contraptions and hers is a speaker phone which does not require hands. But when talking most people have their minds on the conversation, not the road. I finally told her I would not ride with her if she talked on the phone while I was along. She now manages to make it from point A to point B without the phone.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 03, 2000.

There are a lot of people driving today who can't even handle that much safely. Put a soccer mom (or dad) in an SUV with three screaming kids, a cell phone imbedded in their ear, a cup of something from Starbuck's in their hand, and their head imbedded in their ass, and you wonder how anyone gets from point "A" to point "B" anymore. Brooklyn, Ohio, has the right idea, except I think their fines are way too low.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), July 03, 2000.

CPR,

You should watch your careless language. Cretinism is a congenital deficiency of thyroid secretion and is not a character defect. Who knows, maybe you are a pinhead.

-- (PCguy@your.face), July 03, 2000.

Most people can't drive and chew gum at the same time, much less diddle with their radios and cell-phones. Does talking on the phone in your Nip indistinguishable clone car make you feel important? Does it?

Pay attention, you pathetic egoboo seeking jerkoffs.

-- (A@AisA.com), July 03, 2000.

cpr,

Have you ever read, "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?

I suggest that you should.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 03, 2000.

Even so, 52 percent of Texans own a cellular phone and 57 percent use those phones at least once a week while driving.

Let's see. 52% * 57% = over 29% who use their phones when driving. 92% say it's dangerous. So if we discard the 8% who don't think it's dangerous, that leaves at a bare minimum 21% who do something they THEMSELVES think is dangerous when driving. Very clever, aren't they?

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), July 03, 2000.

I'm not surprised at the results of this poll. The T.V. news in the past week announced the statistics on the phenomenal rate of accidents that involved either cell phones or folks diddling with their radio dials. I've seen it, and couldn't imagine what was wrong with the driver. At first I assumed an epileptic seizure, but as I neared, I could see the phone in the ear.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 03, 2000.

Forget driving. I was in Fred Meyer friday night when these two ladies were both on their cell phones talking away. Did I mention that they were talking to each other, even though they were only a couple of aisles away.

No, I'm not saying ban them, but I hope they don't get angry when I hang my laundry up in Orange County and vote for Bob Dole!

-- Bimi Thanton (Bimit@littlerock.con), July 03, 2000.

Someone give Heller a lesson in High School math. I can't be bothered.

as for this : cpr, Have you ever read, "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? I suggest that you should. -- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 03, 2000. HINT: I AM NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE. CPR

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 03, 2000.

cpr,

Are you implying that one has to be running for office to be civil to other people?

Mr. Heller's math skills appear to be working fine, would you care to elaborate on where he is in error?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 03, 2000.

I Never, did you post this on the FRL forum with Old Git, A&L, Anita, Kritter or am I mixed up from reading to many forums. Maybe it was on Just Talkin'. Seems to me more people agreed with you there.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 03, 2000.

J,

I believe Steve's numbers to be correct, but the problem may be more in how that particular sentence was worded. I just hate to see two old friends at loggerheads because of unfortunate phrasing.

(I wrote that last sentence with a straight face. How'd I do?)

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), July 03, 2000.

I almost bought a bumper sticker today..."Put the damn phone down and drive!".

Those annoying people on their damn cell phones make me insane.

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), July 03, 2000.

Two out of two drivers who most recently ran their cars into mine while I was legally stopped at a traffic signal were talking on cell phones when the collisions occurred.

OTOH, criminalizing stupidity might interfere with natural selection, so any short-term gain may be offset by a long-term loss.

Why not just consider talking on a phone while driving to be inattentive driving, for which legal penalties already exist? I see no need for new legislation here, and generally favor giving legislators incentives to simplify the legal code anyway.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), July 03, 2000.

So what's next? Are they going to ban my girlfriend from being in the same car, since I may TALK to her?!?! Hey, talking in person can be much more dangerous while driving. How many people talk with their hands???

Maybe the CD changer will be next. It takes more buttons to push to find the tune that I want, than it does to hit the ON button, on the voice activated hands-free phone...

Then again, some people never could walk and chew bubble gum at the same time...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 04, 2000.

Listen, the most dangerous drivers around are the police. Our patrol cars have three different radios, a scanner, a mobile display terminal, AND a cell phone. I've been in situations where I've been trying to talk on two radios at once, listen to a third, reading an update on the MDT, talking on the cell phone, and driving 90 mph with lights and siren, hoping everyone gets out of my way.

Compared to this, soccer moms on their cell phones are a mere annoyance :^)

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), July 04, 2000.

The best driver is a woman alone.

The worst driver is a woman with a second woman in the passenger seat! Yakkety-double-yak!

(You guys can't get away with saying this, but *I* can!)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), July 04, 2000.

And Ms. Deb, that would imply that a female talking on a cell phone to another would be what? More dangerous? Hardly, how about 2 teens (either gender) in a SUV shucking and jiving to the latest with the 22 speakers set to "entertain" the entire Zip Code they are in?

As for a law about Sysman and his "girl friend". I suspect there should be since the thought of him breeding should jolt anyone.

Now, for the central question, how many opposed talking on a cell phone while driving?

ANS: 92% of those interviewed.

Now, how come no one has addressed this bit of propaganda ResumeMan tried to slip in that any 10th grader would get a big red X for on a "word problem" test ? Note that 92% of ALL surveyed stated that people should not use cell phones while driving. ResumeMan comes up with this propaganda against "gov. intervention" :

ResumeMan writeth:

" Let's see. 52% * 57% = over 29% who use their phones when driving. 92% say it's dangerous. So if we discard the 8% who don't think it's dangerous, that leaves at a bare minimum 21% who do something they THEMSELVES think is dangerous when driving. Very clever, aren't they?"

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

whoops input error. 92% find it dangerous and more than 1/2 would ban it.

(Save this historic post of cpr admitting input error).

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

Good going, CPR. Now all you have to do is admit that my calculations were correct.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), July 04, 2000.

Your "calculations" were bull shit propaganda for your extremist libertarian view that "gov bad, Heller good".

"more that 1/2 " said a law was necessary. The percent you "worked out" of drivers using cell phones is a SUB-SET of the Set: ALL DRIVERS IMPACTED BY CELL PHONE USES. Survey had 1,000 for "N".

FACT: **ALL DRIVERS** (not just the ones using cell phones) are impacted by IRRESPONSIBLE CELL PHONE USERS.

Take your typical propaganda and nit-picking back to the cotton fields where someone might pay you for your skills at picking at something.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

I knew that if I waited long enough that the facists would come up with something I agreed with :^). Sort of like, enough monkies and computers will eventually recreate MS.

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), July 04, 2000.

I'm afraid you're completely wrong here, CPR. Let's take it a bit at a time, so even you will be able to follow it:

"more that 1/2 " said a law was necessary. The percent you "worked out" of drivers using cell phones is a SUB-SET of the Set: ALL DRIVERS IMPACTED BY CELL PHONE USES. Survey had 1,000 for "N".

Okay, let's take 1000 for N. According to the survey, "52 percent of Texans own a cellular phone". On an N of 1000, that makes 520 that have cell phones. With me so far?

Then the survey said that "57 percent use those phones at least once a week while driving". Even you can figure out that this can't be 57% of the whole population, as that would be 570 people out of a thousand, or more than OWN CELL PHONES. I doubt people that don't own cell phones use them while driving. Therefore, the "57 percent" must be 57% of the 52% who own cell phones. 57% of 520 is 296.4. I'll drop the fraction of one person and make it 296 out of a thousand in the population who have used cell phones while driving. Have I lost you yet? Probably, but I'll press on anyway.

Now we have the final fact: "Ninety-two percent of Texans say talking on the phone while driving is dangerous". That means that of the 1000 in the sampled group, 920 believe that it is dangerous, meaning 80 believe that it is not.

Let's put it all together now. Out of our original 1000 people, we have 296 people who have used their cell phone while driving. However, only 80 people believe this is not dangerous. Therefore, there are, at a minimum (assuming that everyone who believes it is not dangerous to use a cell phone while driving has done so, and is therefore in the 296), 216 out of that original 1000 who both believe that it is dangerous to use a cell phone while driving and who have done so anyway.

Q. E. D.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), July 04, 2000.

Heller:

No look what you have done. You have used statistics to suggest that we Texans are delusional, self-destructive morons. While this might be true, it is an insult. It is not wise to insult Texans 8^)

CPR will haunt you.

DB

-- DB (Debuner@nomore.xxx), July 04, 2000.

As a (recently immigrated) Texan myself, I find Texans in general to be superior in many ways to people from my previous states of residence (NE). However, that doesn't mean they are immune to the sort of illogical thinking that is (unfortunately) so well represented on this board.

-- Steve Heller (steve@Steveheller.com), July 04, 2000.

To finish up Steve's analysis, I should point out that these results are a function of the questions asked. You can't get answers to questions you don't ask, and the answers you got to what you DO ask depend on the wording.

Let's suppose we had a question as to whether those who use cell phones while driving consider *themselves* more dangerous. Let's suppose another question asking these people whether *they* are as dangerous as *others* who do so.

I wonder how the answers to these questions might skew the results?

(Hint: Polls have consistently found that 90% of drivers consider themselves "above average" in driving ability.)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 04, 2000.

cpr,

I hate to be the one to say it, but it looks like an apology is in order.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 04, 2000.

I'm sick of those people with phones up to their ears while driving. Just the other day this person was in the right lane next to me talking on the phone. Evidently she noticed at the last moment she was in a right turn only lane and proceeded to attempt to take up the space I was occupying. When I refused to move over to the lane left of me, where there happened to be yet another vehicle, and laid on my horn (not a common practice here in Seattle, I picked it up in Texas), she actually had the nerve to glare at me as if I was doing something wrong.

People do a lot of stupid things while driving, I don't think anyone is required to take driving lessons any more.

Like turning, when making a left turn people start before they even reach the crosswalk in their own lane. This causes them to have to cross over the lane being occupied by cars stopped at their left. And they act offended by this. Of course those cars are stopped over the crosswalk, causing pedestrians to have to go out in the street, dodging on-coming traffic. What is wrong with people that they cannot drive forward a few feet before they initiate a left turn? Are they just lazy or stupid or what? Then you are stopped at a light where you get a free right turn. The moron on your left, with no where to go until the light changes, plays scochy up with you. You stop before the crosswalk, then inch up, making sure there are no pedestrians, trying to see past the SUV oe monster truck on your left, and they have to play catch-up and scootch up too. Just enough to block your view of seeing if you are clear to turn. So you move up some more to try to see around them, they cannot be left behind~Oh no! You are getting ahead of THEM! So they move up too~just far enough to prevent you from seeing around them. By now they are halfway across the intersection anyway, so you might as well take your free right turn because no one can get past them anyway.

Another thing that stupid people do is drive right beside you. There will not e a car for miles around but they have to be right next to you so if a kid runs out into the street in front of you, you will have to sideswipe the idiot next to you in your attempt to avoid the kid. Considering there should be some distance between cars anyway, cars should be staggered.

I know people who talk on the phone and wouldn't notice id a bomb went off in the room, what makes them think their rotten driving will be improved while talking while driving. Kids should be in seat belts and if they are causing a problem, the driver should pull off the road before dealing with it, even if the delay causes physical harm to them. I've even had a baby in the back seat, in a car seat, throwing up and pulled off the road before taking care of the situation. I don't have to look at someone when talking to them, I know a lot of people who do. Maybe they have to read lips because the music is too loud~who knows.

I guess getting my military license and learning to drive trucks and defensive driving taught me the rules that most people do not seem to know exist. Like don't change lanes in an intersection, especially in a state with free right turns.

When I took drivers training in high school we were shown a movie called "mechanical death". It was horrible and scared the hell out of us. But later it was stopped from being shown because it was too graphic. With movies as graphic as they are today, there is no excuse for not showing those real graphic training films during high school drivers training. The fact is that teens cannot conceive anything bad happening to them until they see it for themselves.

We need to change the laws in the US to those like the ones in Australia, where it takes years for teenagers to receive a free and clear drivers license.

Personally I don't think anyone should be allowed to get a drivers license until they are out of puberty.

"Rolling eyes" Oh~ I know there are some responsible teenage drivers, but those are the exceptions and there are not enough of them to justify the damage and death caused by the the rest.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 04, 2000.

YES, certainly and I will expect it from ResumeBoy post haste. And from others who lack rudimentary Math skills.

Fact, the small population to which ResumeBoy refers is THE SUB SET THAT IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. AND THE PROBLEM IS "PEOPLE WHO USE CELL PHONES WHILE DRIVING ..........CAUSE ACCIDENTS". As the data pours in, the cell phone industry is trying to prevent any laws that will reduce sales. That is normal. One can even sympathize with them when one sees the spurious use of statistics to justify "cell phones cause sickness" distributed by the anti-Cell phone Zombies.

ResumeBoy's statements ARE **IRRELEVANT** and refer ONLY to a subset. That is the typical mis-use or "Disinformation" distributed on the net.

ALL HE CAN PROVE IS THAT ONLY **a fraction of "N"** use cell phones while driving. HE IS ***LEAVING OUT THE NON-CELL PHONE USERS WHO CAN BE IN ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY THE FEW WHO "USE AND DRIVE".

He couldn't make something "QED" if he had free use of all 26 letters to do it. That was my point. He is doing the "Hellerian shuffle" and the Math Illiterate unfamiliar with "abusing numbers" (probably about 95% of the US population) let him get away with this BULL.

92%(1000) say car phone use while driving bad. 920.

8% (1000 say not bad. 80%.

"OVER 1/2 of the 1,000" want a change. WHO THE *FUCK* CARES WHETHER OR NOT THEY USE PHONES WHILE DRIVING???

ALL...........are impacted by those who DO USE PHONES and the MAJORITY WANT IT STOPPED.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

If CPR were to lay out the steps of the "word problem" as I did, he would discover that he is wrong and I am right. That, of course, is unthinkable to him. Since he is unable to defend his position by reasoned argument, he attacks me on irrelevancies.

Just keep it up, CPR, and you will have NO defenders on this board (at least, none with even rudimentary logic and math skills).

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), July 04, 2000.

cpr,

Let me help.
According to www.economagic.com, the most recent (1998) population number for the state of Texas is 19,759,614. The article says that "92% of Texans (18,178,844) say talking on the phone while driving is dangerous".

The article also says, "Even so, 52% of Texans (10,274,999) own a cellular phone and 57% (5,856,749) use those phones at least once a week while driving".

Let me summarize:

1)Number of Texans = 19,759,614
2)Number of Texans who say using cell phone while driving is dangerous = 18,178,844
3)Number of Texans who don't say using cell phone while driving is dangerous = 1,580,770
4)Number of Texans who own a cell phone = 10,274,999
5)Number of Texans who use a cell phone at least once a week while driving = 5,856,749

Conclusion: Only 1,580,770 TEXANS don't say using a cell phone while driving is dangerous, and yet, 5,856,749 TEXANS use a cell phone while driving. Therefore, 4,275,979 TEXANS do something that they say is dangerous.

Now do you get it?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 04, 2000.

WHAT is the point of either of you two? That people behave irrationally. Heller is proof of that. No need to look further.

BTW, my little Master's is in MATH not LIBERAL ARTS.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

WHAT is the point of either of you two? That people behave irrationally.

Yes, that was the original point. The additional point made clear by this discussion is that you are incapable of following the simplest logical argument involving numbers, and incapable of admitting error when you are clearly in the wrong. I hope that helps.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), July 04, 2000.

Steve:

Let me hazard a guess what CPR is trying so poorly to say. Yes, 92% said phoning while driving is dangerous. As you point out, this necessarily means that some of the poll respondents engaged in what they themselves consider dangerous behavior. Don't we all?

However, only "more than half" wanted some law against it. If this is 50% plus one person, it remains possible for nearly every cell phone owner to oppose such a law, since only 52% even own cell phones.

It remains possible (and indeed likely) that every cell phone owner who phones while driving opposes this law, even though some must necessarily admit it degrades their driving. But hey, driving while half-awake degrades my skills, yet outlawing this would prevent me from getting to work in the morning.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 04, 2000.

Let me hazard a guess what CPR is trying so poorly to say.

Flint, he doesn't need your help, creeper is perfectly able to say anything he want to poorly... he demonstrates this daily, ok, hourly... every 10 minutes?

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), July 04, 2000.

cpr,

My points are that:

1)Your social skills on this forum are atrocious. You call people names like cretin, imbecile, and asshole. Your use of all caps, which is the internet equivalent of shouting, is way overdone. You use vulgarities. You claim that Steve Heller is spreading propaganda and belittle his math skills.

2) You will not admit when you are wrong. You go around this forum like you are on a crusade to right the wrongs of Y2K "doomers", but when crude oil prices keep going up, you trot out "adjusted for inflation" and Happy Meal price comparisons. In your haste to belittle Steve Heller's math skills, YOU were the one proven to be in error. How did you respond after being shown exactly how Steve Heller's math was correct? Did you offer an apology? No, you tried to change the subject, claim that Steve Heller is irrational, and impress us by pointing out that your master's degree is in math.

In my opinion, a man who exhibits few social skills, and a steadfast inability to admit when he is wrong, is an insufferable boor.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 05, 2000.

Like I care one IOTA what *your* opinion of me is. Time after time, I've witnessed people like you reject sound thinking over Y2k based on whether or not YOU approve of the people making the statements, I.E. whether or not you "like" the person and his/her "cyber conduct". Get a clue FAST: "To the Victors Belong the Spoils".

In the case of Y2k Doom FUD, irrational people with dis-information made every effort to reject solid information and then smear and tar those who posted it. The example of the abuse that Maria took from one J.Vilches (where is he now) is classic. Flint and Decker were smeared.

Hell-R's record of statements on matters both Y2k and non-Y2k ranks right down there with Gary North's (a 3 decade loser).

Maybe Hell-r can impress YOU with his statements but invariably they are propaganda for his extreme Libertarian views or trumpet blast about his Superiority in everything.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 05, 2000.

So in other words, CPR is unable to defend his position, and as usual resorts to personal attacks. Par for the course, unfortunately.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), July 05, 2000.

cpr,

If you don't care about my opinion, why did you ask me what my point was?

You say, "I've witnessed people like you reject sound thinking over Y2k based on whether or not YOU approve of the people making the statements", then you have the AUDACITY (or STUPIDITY) to try and refute Heller's math based on your dislike for the man and his views. You are a tremendous hypocrite.

Since you don't like Heller, you try and discredit everything that he says. This is, of course, what you just accused me of doing. Your problem in this thread is that in your excitement to discredit Heller, you argued not against some gray area that is hard to prove or disprove conclusively, but instead, you argued against the certainty of a mathematical equation. When you were PROVEN wrong, you tried to change directions and trot out your master's in math. Don't you see that when you have just made a math blunder, it is embarrassing, not impressive, to point out that you have a higher degree in the field?

Finally, to reaffirm your status as head forum hypocrite, you categorize Heller's statements as propaganda (see your words above on rejecting sound thinking based on who is making the statements), or as a "trumpet blast about his Superiority in everything". That must rank as the single most hypocritocal statement that this forum has ever seen. Or have you already forgotten how you pointed out that your master's was in MATH.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 05, 2000.

cpr,

If you don't care about my opinion, why did you ask me what my point was?

You say, "I've witnessed people like you reject sound thinking over Y2k based on whether or not YOU approve of the people making the statements", then you have the AUDACITY (or STUPIDITY) to try and refute Heller's math based on your dislike for the man and his views. You are a tremendous hypocrite.

Since you don't like Heller, you try and discredit everything that he says. This is, of course, what you just accused me of doing. Your problem in this thread is that in your excitement to discredit Heller, you argued not against some gray area that is hard to prove or disprove conclusively, but instead, you argued against the certainty of a mathematical equation. When you were PROVEN wrong, you tried to change directions and trot out your master's in math. Don't you see that when you have just made a math blunder, it is embarrassing, not impressive, to point out that you have a higher degree in the field?

Finally, to reaffirm your status as head forum hypocrite, you categorize Heller's statements as propaganda (see your words above on rejecting sound thinking based on who is making the statements), or as a "trumpet blast about his Superiority in everything". That must rank as the single most hypocritocal statement that this forum has ever seen. Or have you already forgotten how you pointed out that your master's was in MATH?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 05, 2000.

Sorry about the duplicate post. OTFR, feel free to delete one of the two.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 05, 2000.

I'll bet if we were discussing the merits of squash over sweet potatoes, cpr and Heller would get into a big set-to.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 05, 2000.

If I may be so bold, anyone mind if I address the original point of this article? Didn't think so.

Why are "they" "fascists" simply because they want to put a stop to the idiocy of chatting on a cell phone while driving? Seems to me that's just common sense (which, apparently, is anything BUT "common"). What possible difference can it make if the only people who will then be "allowed" to chat on a cell phone while they are in a car are ones who are NOT driving?

It's bad enough to have to deal with (as cpr so eloquently put it) "the 22 speakers set to "entertain" the entire Zip Code they are in". Why do my insides have to become part of the freaking backbeat while I'm waiting for the light to change? It's also quite hair-raising to have to deal with those drivers who, while driving at a pretty fair clip in the RIGHT LANE, suddenly (takes about a nano-second) decide they ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY MUST MAKE THE NEXT LEFT (which, BTW, is approximately 12 feet from the point of their initial "thought"). This can only be accomplished by darting across not less than three lanes of traffic.

These people are somehow biologically related to cats.

If "they" want to ban "chatting on cell phones while driving", more power to "them". It's one less bit of idiocy *I* have to deal with while driving.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 05, 2000.

maybe you'd drive better with that phone up your ass?

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 06, 2000.