Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>
>>In other words: 1. No, you have not read the report
>
>
> Wrong. I've read the report.

I think you're full of ****. But I'll look for the report and let you
know just how full of **** you really are. Upon further review, the
article you provided (you know, not the one that was totally irrelevant)
actually beefed up the original press release from the NSC to actually
add "conversed with a passenger" to the original sentence "and that cell
phone conversations create much higher levels of driver distractions
than listening to the radio or audio books" which made no mention of
in-car conversation at all.

> I just don't feel obligated to do *your*
> homework for you.

LOL, you had time to google up a couple of unrelated news articles, that
you now say "One does not obtain scientific knowledge from", but no time
to answer the very simple question I asked. Simple that is, for someone
who claims to have read a study or report or any other source of
information in existence which presents evidence that a handsfree cell
phone conversation is more dangerous than an equivalent in-car conversation.

> If you want to read the report, go and do it and be
> successful with it. If you don't want to read the report, feel free to
> remain ignorant.

So which report that you claim you read was it? The report cited in the
article discussed above, or the "earlier" study cited in that same
article, or the Swedish study in the second article you posted? All
three? Which one made any mention at all of a comparison between in-car
conversation and handsfree cell conversation?

>
> But until you *have* read the report, your opinions and guesses and
> preferences have very little weight.
>

True enough, I'll be sure to report back and trounce you some more after
I track it down.