From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Calvin Henry-Cotnam  wrote:   
   >Adam H. Kerman (ahk@chinet.com) said...   
      
   >>To repeat myself for the monstrously oblivious, that has nothing to do   
   >>with distracted driving, the topic under discussion.   
      
   >QED: This proves why Adam H. Kerman does not get it. The topic under   
   >discussion was NOT distracted driving. It was how the telephone has   
   >changed the way people act with it in ways they don't do with face-to-face   
   >communication. I used distracted driving as an extension to that premise,   
   >because it is ANOTHER way people act when a telephone is thrown in.   
      
   >Adam H. Kerman needs to learn to read to understand. Follow what is being   
   >said and stop making it up as you go along.   
      
   The calling party doesn't control the called party. If the latter doesn't   
   answer while talking on the phone could distract from driving, there's   
   no distraction; irrelevant. If the call is answered, the expectation that   
   the call would have been answered continues to be irrelevant.   
      
   Next you'll claim that expectations from use of a land line alters driver's   
   behavior, although that wouldn't have been used in a car without a really   
   long extension cord.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)