Dumb Arizona female runner calls out Olympic runner for running with headphones

Yes really, no mistake there.

So anyway, judging by the flaccidity of your last 3 or 4 posts it seems you're running out of steam. Nothing of any substance whatsoever. You know your 'evidence' is baseless and that headline writers have fluffed up its supposed relevance to anything. Even the study itself only concludes that headphones 'may' pose a risk

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2012/01/03/injuryprev-2011-040161.short

so, I'm going to bow out now. Doubtless you'll see that as further evidence of your triumph (although a few other posters seem to disagree), but I really couldn't care less.

Nothing of any substance whatsoever.

I put up plenty of substance earlier in the thread, it's up to you to disprove what I posted before I need to put up anything else. Guess what - you haven't.

I'm getting really bored with your pathetic attitude, please either post something substantial or quit whining.

In English English they don't. Besides which "inverted commas" are not always quotation marks (the example you've just "scored" is not a quotation, so it is quite simple: if the inverted commas are not marking a quotation then they aren't quotation marks).

I think your stupidity merits detention: please write out 100 times 'I will no longer confuse "use-mention distinction marks" with "quotation marks"'.

you do realise that every single one of the links you provided as 'evidence' references just one study. The same study that actually concludes, and I quote :

"The use of headphones with handheld devices may pose a safety risk to pedestrians, especially in environments with moving vehicles. Further research is needed to determine if and how headphone use compromises pedestrian safety."

Hardly damning 'proof' now, is it? And since you're the one who's been claiming how dangerous it is from the get go, the burden of proof is on you to prove that's the case, not on me to prove that it isn't. Good luck with that

By the way - I fully expect the 'you're a liar!' treatment again now, since I said I was bowing out and have now replied. Go on, it'd suit you

By the way - I fully expect the 'you're a liar!' treatment again now, since I said I was bowing out and have now replied. Go on, it'd suit you

I'm at a loss to understand your attitude; every time I've pointed out that you have made a false statement (where I come from we call those "lies", but I know you prefer the term "mistakes"), it turned out that you HAD lied, so why are you acting as if I have no justification for calling you a liar?

I don't care if you bow out or stay in, I've provided evidence that headphones pose a risk, not only to the wearer, but also to those around him/her. The only suitable response that you can make is to present a study which refutes mine, so keep posting or stop, I don't care, because as far as I'm concerned, until you provide actual counter-evidence you aren't saying anything worth listening to.

OK, so ignoring the 'lies' nonsense, you basically just ignored what I wrote. You're definitely still winning though, bravo! Show me your 'smoking gun' or give up. I already told you the burden of proof is yours

I met my burden of proof long ago. Not only have I shown evidence off a causal link between headphones and distracted, risk-taking behaviour in traffic (FYI, I've posted more than one study - another thing you are wrong about. Does your incompetence ever end?), I've also posted several links which analyse the study's results and come to the diametrically opposite opinion to yours.

Over to you. Can you post even ONE piece of evidence for your side?

So the conclusion is this, evidently : nowhere in any study you've produced has wearing headphones been shown to either posse a risk it be dangerous. The best I can see is 'may pose a risk (further evidence required)' and a weak correlation between distraction and caution crossing a road. But that's a good one - talking to someone whilst cruising the road fell under the same remit, and that is a truly heinous crime. I definitely wouldn't 'give a crap' about anyone being hit under those circumstances, ignorant and selfish people that they are. Give it up, none of your evidence is in anyway proof that a risk is posed. A 'casual link' could be accounted for by any number of other factors which, sadly, you won't be able to disprove.

And as far as evidence to counter it goes, you seem determined to ignore the studies provided which show very clearly accidents involving pedestrians with headphone make a miniscule amount of the total number of accidents

Edit last paragraph (before you burst with excitement) : "reported accidents involving pedestrians wearing headphones"

Still trying to shift focus I see - can you show me where I've commented on any of your typos before?

If you had an argument you wouldn't need these silly little tactics.

And as far as evidence to counter it goes, you seem determined to ignore the studies provided which show very clearly accidents involving pedestrians with headphone make a miniscule amount of the total number of accidents

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! STOP arguing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!0847238RYFGEHJQWGBVFKCBDNVBWKbvhWBCVKdbcndw cdwjhvd

Hint: it does. It's called statistical insignificance. I know those are big words and you don't understand them yet, but you can look them up if you need to.

Nope, still doesn't. Even if only one person is distracted by wearing headphones and causes an accident, headphones are still an unnecessary distraction.

BTW, you've been consistently proven wrong throughout this thread, condescension is neither warranted nor helpful to your cause.

Typos weren't mentioned at all, it was the fact I'd left out the word 'reported' that I was referring to. This is farcical now - you've been shown repeatedly that your studies don't in any way prove that pedestrians wearing headphones pose a risk, you refuse to acknowledge the relevance of statistical significance (hugely relevant to your claims) and are still holding onto this bizarre idea that you keep proving other people wrong.

Remember this all goes back to you claiming Andrew Lemoncello was endangering others. Can you actually prove he was doing so, any more so than if he was out for a run with someone else and they were talking to each other, for example?

A typo isn't always a spelling error - word elision can be a typo. Something else you are wrong about.

This is simply false, you haven't shown anything of the sort. Your belief that you have presented ANY valid counterargument is simply deluded.

No it isn't - you can keep claiming that statistical significance is relevant to my argument, but that is another falsehood. Even if, out of six billion-odd people in the world, one person dies because they were distracted by their headphones, then the FACT that headphones cause a distraction is proven.

Well I demonstrated that Geomathematician's calculation of statistical significance was based on fraudulent figures, and I've presented facts that you haven't been able to disprove, so I think I've managed OK.

Already done, now it is over to you to disprove the facts.

So in this instance the 'typo' was relevant as this was a point you've frequently referred to (that the 116 figure only related to instances we know about)

What you fail to realise about the statistical significance is that it is essentially means you CANNOT state headphones were the cause of the accident. The numbers showed that approximately 1 in each 1000 of these accidents were known to have the pedestrian wearing earphones. It might as well have been 'were wearing green socks' for ask the relevance that holds. So again, actual proof please, that they were the cause. And remember, anecdotal evidence isn't adequate, as you've claimed before on this thread.

Sorry, just read your last post again. Exactly how were Geomathematician's figures 'fraudulent' and exactly which 'facts' have I been unable to disprove?

I think I'm getting to the bottom of this now. You don't actually understand what 'proof' is, do you?

So in this instance the 'typo' was relevant

Did I say it wasn't?

What you fail to realise about the statistical significance is that it is essentially means you CANNOT state headphones were the cause of the accident.

This is simply false.

Whether or not the total number of accidents involving headphone wearers reaches the threshold of statistical significance in the total number of pedestrian/vehicle accidents is irrelevant to the FACT that the number of accidents involving headphones wearers multiplied SIX TIMES over the course of the study.

The absolute number is what counts, not the statistical significance of the total.

BTW, I know what proof is, but can you put together an argument without the ad hominem's? All you are doing with the childish comments is proving (over and over and over again) how weak your basic argument is.