[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
And that it would probably fix itself just like it always had. IT DIDN'T MATTER MUCH THAT THESE SYMPTOMS WERE USUALLY CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have it backwards, it wasn't her using the luckyme argument it was you. Essentially, enough specific information will reach a point where it overrides much more general 'background' information.

If she had experience with with 100 phones with that symptom and 90 of them were kaput. It has little bearing on your specific case of 'recent moisture / drying ' will typically fire up again.

She's making the same error people did in the black teacher example. The fact that the crime rate of the 30M black people in america is, say, 3% ( including black teachers) tells us nothing about the crime rate of black teachers .. we're in such a small specialized section of the field that there is no reason to think the causes for the general rate apply to it.

The trick to these situations is that both experiences can be 'right'. Your limited 'wet/dry/working' can be a small subset of her much larger data base. She may have seen that symptom 100 times and 90 times the phone was kaput so her 'general law' is right. You may have had a handful of specific wet/dry cases that would often be part of her 10 time exception.

The error being made in cases like this is the lack of the overlapping conditions that apply in similar looking situations such as shy people being waitresses rather than librarians or women (mis)diagnosed with breast cancer.

luckyme