On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Maddux, Michel wrote:
Let me guess, I have the time to do research for you, that you are unwilling
or unable to do. You say
that something is entirely anecdotal, I say that it isn't. Do the research.
Meaning no disrespect, I believe he said that he had never seen any claims
that were not anecdotal. "Claims which are not anecdotal exist" does not
answer this; only presenting such a claim would. Couched in friendlier
terms, the discussion might have been:
A: I have never seen actual evidence that a problem exists.
B: I have.
A: Oh, really? Where?
B: I don't know. But I've definitely seen it - perhaps if you looked, you
would too.
At any rate, http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/news/Gsm_intf.PDF seems to indicate
that there are no recorded incidents of people eating each other to stay
alive on the side of a snow covered mountain, and later discovering that
it was all on account of a cell-phone. It does not reference anything but
cellphones, however, so I don't see it as asserting a lack of evidence.
But they do go out of their way to assert that the reason for the study
itself is the inability to prove that odd behaviour believed to be caused
by radio interference was indeed so caused.
However, as someone who every week endangers the lives of hundreds by
driving on public thoroughfares, it would be quite hypocritical of me to
claim that safety for myself and others should ever take precedence over
one person's personal convenience.
-= flail? http://flail.com/ =-
-= the online comic strip =-