http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070530/K053017AU.html

" wrote:
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070530/K053017AU.html


What cell phone opponents?
I don't remember anyone here being categorically opposed to cell phones.
The problem than a number of us have with them is the people driving around
yakking on them instead of paying attention to the road and the ignorant
louts who expose everyone around them to one sided high volume
conversations.

I would rather see a cell phone shot out of someone's hand in a restaurant
that have it shot up in their pocket, where it should be when in a public
place.

Dave Smith > wrote:

> What cell phone opponents? I don't remember anyone here being
> categorically opposed to cell phones.

Cellphone opposition is more prominent in the U.K., where activists
routinely topple cellphone masts.

In the U.S. there is not as strong a tradition of civil
disobedience.

Steve

One time on Usenet, (Steve Pope) said:
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > What cell phone opponents? I don't remember anyone here being
> > categorically opposed to cell phones.
>
> Cellphone opposition is more prominent in the U.K., where activists
> routinely topple cellphone masts.
>
> In the U.S. there is not as strong a tradition of civil
> disobedience.

Not true, we just choose our battles differently...

--
Jani in WA

Little Malice > wrote:

>One time on Usenet, (Steve Pope) said:

>> In the U.S. there is not as strong a tradition of civil
>> disobedience.

>Not true, we just choose our battles differently...

I still say it's a stronger tradition in the U.K. At least
in terms of recent practice. The U.S. is positively wimpy
when it comes to civil disobedience, for the last 30 years
or so.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:

> Little Malice > wrote:
>
> >One time on Usenet, (Steve Pope) said:
>
> >> In the U.S. there is not as strong a tradition of civil
> >> disobedience.
>
> >Not true, we just choose our battles differently...
>
> I still say it's a stronger tradition in the U.K. At least
> in terms of recent practice. The U.S. is positively wimpy
> when it comes to civil disobedience, for the last 30 years
> or so.


I'd agree. There have been the odd anti - war demonstrations lately but
they are pretty tame compared even to the Vietnam War era demos...they are
relatively piddling events.

Europeans (and others) will routinely demonstrate in the hundreds of
thousands or even millions about domestic/foreign policies, the environment,
etc. The French especially, even the Germans. A whiles back many German
medical staff went on a big strike to protest working conditions, etc. When
is the last time a large group of workers here in the states went on strike
or took time off to demonstrate about something? Of course, under EU labor
laws strikers can't be immmediately fired like they can here (air traffic
controllers vs. Reagan), but still...

The only really big demonstrations in the US lately have been by illegals
pressing for "rights", but even those are fizzling out...

--
Best
Greg

Steve Pope wrote:
>
>
> >Not true, we just choose our battles differently...
>
> I still say it's a stronger tradition in the U.K. At least
> in terms of recent practice. The U.S. is positively wimpy
> when it comes to civil disobedience, for the last 30 years
> or so.


Americans learned a nasty lesson about exercising their right to protest at
Kent State.

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > What cell phone opponents? I don't remember anyone here being
> > categorically opposed to cell phones.
>
> Cellphone opposition is more prominent in the U.K., where activists
> routinely topple cellphone masts.


Not a very nice thing to do. The masts cause no trouble, it's
irresponsible *users* of cellphones that cause the trouble. Cellphones
are very useful devices. My family has five, not counting the second
one that my daughter carries. We don't "chat" on the phone. We don't
talk at the restaurant (although we may answer long enough to say that
we'll call after eating), and I don't talk and drive.

Some time back (before text messaging), some school board member decided
to make a rule that students couldn't have cell phones at school.
Certainly, using a cell phone during class is very disruptive. Typical
of schools, they just banned them entirely. One day there was a natural
disaster, and power and phone service died at the school. The kids and
their parents were naturally panicked, since they all knew something was
wrong but they couldn't communicate. Well, some of the kids had snuck
cell phones in, and so the parents and kids could assure each other that
everything was OK and it was just a local thing. At the next school
board meeting, the rule was amended so that students couldn't use cell
phones during class, but could bring them.

My nephew, age 15, has a cell phone and takes it to school, despite the
fact that they aren't allowed. He says that the teachers pay no
attention to the rule as long as it is used during free time.

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What cell phone opponents? I don't remember anyone here being
>>>categorically opposed to cell phones.
>>
>>Cellphone opposition is more prominent in the U.K., where activists
>>routinely topple cellphone masts.
>
>
>
> Not a very nice thing to do. The masts cause no trouble, it's
> irresponsible *users* of cellphones that cause the trouble. Cellphones
> are very useful devices. My family has five, not counting the second
> one that my daughter carries. We don't "chat" on the phone. We don't
> talk at the restaurant (although we may answer long enough to say that
> we'll call after eating), and I don't talk and drive.
>
> Some time back (before text messaging), some school board member decided
> to make a rule that students couldn't have cell phones at school.
> Certainly, using a cell phone during class is very disruptive. Typical
> of schools, they just banned them entirely. One day there was a natural
> disaster, and power and phone service died at the school. The kids and
> their parents were naturally panicked, since they all knew something was
> wrong but they couldn't communicate. Well, some of the kids had snuck
> cell phones in, and so the parents and kids could assure each other that
> everything was OK and it was just a local thing. At the next school
> board meeting, the rule was amended so that students couldn't use cell
> phones during class, but could bring them.
>
> My nephew, age 15, has a cell phone and takes it to school, despite the
> fact that they aren't allowed. He says that the teachers pay no
> attention to the rule as long as it is used during free time.


I substitute teach in our local school district. Use and/or display of
"electronic devices" is prohibited district wide although enforcement
varies from school to school. I personally have no objections to the
use of IPODs and the like assuming I'm not actually testing, lecturing
or explaining assignments at the time.

In my experience, when an assignment for in-class work has been given,
allowing the use of MP3 players cuts the noise level in the room by
about 85%. The players, splitters and headphones come out and the kids
arrange themselves in various congenial configurations, casually
juggling computing power and memory that dwarf the machines used to
guide the first rockets to the moon.

I'm well aware of the presence of cell phones, including my own. My
only stipulation is that they be turned to silent mode. During a recent
middle school assignment I took part in a lock-down drill. In the case
of an armed intruder in the building we were to lock the door to the
classroom from the inside and slide a piece of paper under the door to
the hallway. Green if everything was hunky-dory, red if the bad guy was
in there with us.

Only they didn't give me the key to the room. So the secretary in the
office tells me, via the intercom, "Have the kids hide along the wall
next to the door so the bad guy can't see you through the hallway window".
The classroom para and I looked at each other and I told him, "If this
was the real thing and we had no way to lock this room you and the two
biggest boys would be out that window over there and I'd be dropping the
kids down to you, and me right behind them."

Kathleen > wrote:

>I substitute teach in our local school district. Use and/or display of
>"electronic devices" is prohibited district wide although enforcement
>varies from school to school. I personally have no objections to the
>use of IPODs and the like assuming I'm not actually testing, lecturing
>or explaining assignments at the time.
>
>In my experience, when an assignment for in-class work has been given,
>allowing the use of MP3 players cuts the noise level in the room by
>about 85%. The players, splitters and headphones come out and the kids
>arrange themselves in various congenial configurations, casually
>juggling computing power and memory that dwarf the machines used to
>guide the first rockets to the moon.

So the MP3 players are a form of babysitting.

Isn't part of the point to banning "use and display of electronic
devices" so that pupils must engage in learning activities as
opposed to huddling together listening to misogynist popular music?

Steve

In article >,
says...
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dave Smith > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What cell phone opponents? I don't remember anyone here being
> >>>categorically opposed to cell phones.
> >>
> >>Cellphone opposition is more prominent in the U.K., where activists
> >>routinely topple cellphone masts.
> >
> >
> >
> > Not a very nice thing to do. The masts cause no trouble, it's
> > irresponsible *users* of cellphones that cause the trouble. Cellphones
> > are very useful devices. My family has five, not counting the second
> > one that my daughter carries. We don't "chat" on the phone. We don't
> > talk at the restaurant (although we may answer long enough to say that
> > we'll call after eating), and I don't talk and drive.
> >
> > Some time back (before text messaging), some school board member decided
> > to make a rule that students couldn't have cell phones at school.
> > Certainly, using a cell phone during class is very disruptive. Typical
> > of schools, they just banned them entirely. One day there was a natural
> > disaster, and power and phone service died at the school. The kids and
> > their parents were naturally panicked, since they all knew something was
> > wrong but they couldn't communicate. Well, some of the kids had snuck
> > cell phones in, and so the parents and kids could assure each other that
> > everything was OK and it was just a local thing. At the next school
> > board meeting, the rule was amended so that students couldn't use cell
> > phones during class, but could bring them.
> >
> > My nephew, age 15, has a cell phone and takes it to school, despite the
> > fact that they aren't allowed. He says that the teachers pay no
> > attention to the rule as long as it is used during free time.
>
>
> I substitute teach in our local school district. Use and/or display of
> "electronic devices" is prohibited district wide although enforcement
> varies from school to school. I personally have no objections to the
> use of IPODs and the like assuming I'm not actually testing, lecturing
> or explaining assignments at the time.
>
> In my experience, when an assignment for in-class work has been given,
> allowing the use of MP3 players cuts the noise level in the room by
> about 85%. The players, splitters and headphones come out and the kids
> arrange themselves in various congenial configurations, casually
> juggling computing power and memory that dwarf the machines used to
> guide the first rockets to the moon.
>
> I'm well aware of the presence of cell phones, including my own. My
> only stipulation is that they be turned to silent mode. During a recent
> middle school assignment I took part in a lock-down drill. In the case
> of an armed intruder in the building we were to lock the door to the
> classroom from the inside and slide a piece of paper under the door to
> the hallway. Green if everything was hunky-dory, red if the bad guy was
> in there with us.
>
> Only they didn't give me the key to the room. So the secretary in the
> office tells me, via the intercom, "Have the kids hide along the wall
> next to the door so the bad guy can't see you through the hallway window".
> The classroom para and I looked at each other and I told him, "If this
> was the real thing and we had no way to lock this room you and the two
> biggest boys would be out that window over there and I'd be dropping the
> kids down to you, and me right behind them."

Thanks for the in the trenches story. I always keep my cell on vibrate
anyhow since I abhor the ring tones and other gadgety crap on phones
these days.

Dan Abel > scripsit in news:dabel-1795FA.17245731052007
@cor8-ppp5025.per.dsl.connect.net.au:

> it's
> irresponsible *users* of cellphones that cause the trouble.

Essentially the problem is that the concept of "responsible use of
cellphones" is very much left up to the beholder so that what may not
irrate most might cause a small minority to need Valium to unclench the
buttcheeks. You can try to be as courteous as possible, there's always
a tight-assed biddy who takes exception to the fact that you even HAVE
a cellphone. Personally, I don't give a toss if someone uses a
cellphone or not anywher near me. Cleaning your fingernails or blowing
your nose in a very loud manner at the next table in a restaurant, that
REALLY irritates me.

Before that it was "computers are taking over our lives" and way before
that "if we continue with this riding of domestic animals, donkeys will
rule the world". People have been complaining about something since
the invention of the stick. They should turn their attention to spam.
Now that's a pest.

--

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>>> What cell phone opponents? I don't remember anyone here being
>>> categorically opposed to cell phones.
>>
>> Cellphone opposition is more prominent in the U.K., where activists
>> routinely topple cellphone masts.
>
>
> Not a very nice thing to do. The masts cause no trouble, it's
> irresponsible *users* of cellphones that cause the trouble.
>
Very true.

> Some time back (before text messaging), some school board member
> decided to make a rule that students couldn't have cell phones at
> school. Certainly, using a cell phone during class is very
> disruptive. Typical of schools, they just banned them entirely. One
> day there was a natural disaster, and power and phone service died at
> the school. The kids and their parents were naturally panicked,
> since they all knew something was wrong but they couldn't
> communicate. Well, some of the kids had snuck cell phones in, and so
> the parents and kids could assure each other that everything was OK
> and it was just a local thing. At the next school board meeting, the
> rule was amended so that students couldn't use cell phones during
> class, but could bring them.
>
Hear hear! Well said, Dan. I never wanted a cell phone. I only got one
for emergencies, such as if my car breaks down, and for my parents to be
able to reach me when I travel. Otherwise I don't use it at all.

Jill

In article <dabel-1795FA.17245731052007@cor8-
ppp5025.per.dsl.connect.net.au>, says...
> In article >,
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> > Dave Smith > wrote:
> >
> > > What cell phone opponents? I don't remember anyone here being
> > > categorically opposed to cell phones.
> >
> > Cellphone opposition is more prominent in the U.K., where activists
> > routinely topple cellphone masts.
>
>
> Not a very nice thing to do. The masts cause no trouble, it's
> irresponsible *users* of cellphones that cause the trouble. Cellphones
> are very useful devices. My family has five, not counting the second
> one that my daughter carries. We don't "chat" on the phone. We don't
> talk at the restaurant (although we may answer long enough to say that
> we'll call after eating), and I don't talk and drive.
>
> Some time back (before text messaging), some school board member decided
> to make a rule that students couldn't have cell phones at school.
> Certainly, using a cell phone during class is very disruptive. Typical
> of schools, they just banned them entirely. One day there was a natural
> disaster, and power and phone service died at the school. The kids and
> their parents were naturally panicked, since they all knew something was
> wrong but they couldn't communicate. Well, some of the kids had snuck
> cell phones in, and so the parents and kids could assure each other that
> everything was OK and it was just a local thing. At the next school
> board meeting, the rule was amended so that students couldn't use cell
> phones during class, but could bring them.
>
> My nephew, age 15, has a cell phone and takes it to school, despite the
> fact that they aren't allowed. He says that the teachers pay no
> attention to the rule as long as it is used during free time.

I was going continuing ed classes in the period after 09/11/01. We
weren't allowed to bring cell phones but I had to. I was working for the
AG in my state and had to carry it.

The funny part was 90% or more of the professor had cell phones with
them.

> T wrote:
>
>
> A holster on your belt would be considered ground for police here
to
> shoot you.
>
>

Unfortunately true in some of the neighborhoods around me.

In article >,
"Randy Johnson" > wrote:

> On 31-May-2007, " > wrote:
>
> > http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070530/K053017AU.html
>
> One feel-good story does not make up for the misery caused by obnoxious,
> self-absorbed cell phone users; cell phone use should be banned while
> driving, in public places (such as restaurants, theaters, waiting rooms,
> etc).

On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my daughter, I
may need it to tell my husband where we are.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

"Miche" > wrote in message
>
> On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my daughter, I
> may need it to tell my husband where we are.
>
> Miche

And that can be done in 15 seconds or less. It is the loudmouth that talks
on the phone for 20 minutes and is disruptive that is the problem, no matter
the place.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Miche" > wrote in message
>> On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my daughter, I
>> may need it to tell my husband where we are.
>>
>> Miche
>
> And that can be done in 15 seconds or less. It is the loudmouth that talks
> on the phone for 20 minutes and is disruptive that is the problem, no matter
> the place.
>
>
Unfortunately like most things a few give everyone a bad name. I put my
phone in manner mode or just turn it off when in a restaurant etc. That
way I can look at the CID and go outside to call them back.

The other day we were in a restaurant and there was a blaring ringtone
and the person answered in a loud voice. They kept going for at least 15
minutes and spoke loud enough to ensure everyone in the restaurant knew
how important they were. An example of even more clueless I was at an
event where there would be a speaker and the phone of the extremely self
important guy in front of me started ringing just before the event
started. He starts yakking in a loud voice. The MC went to the podium to
introduce the speaker and asked that people turn off their phones. The
guy actually got louder. The MC asked again and I gave the guys chair a
kick and he kept going. The person next to him gave him a nudge and he
kept going. The person on the other side of him gave him a nudge and
pointed at the speaker and the guy stopped.

I was at another event and a guys phone started ringing and the guy
answered it and got into a loud conversation while the speaker was
giving his presentation. The speaker politely asked the guy to turn the
phone off and the guy announced that it was important business. A number
of us said to the guy "maybe you should be somewhere else this
morning" and he left in a huff.

George wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Miche" > wrote in message
>>> On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my
>>> daughter, I may need it to tell my husband where we are.
>>>
>>> Miche
>>
>> And that can be done in 15 seconds or less. It is the loudmouth that
>> talks on the phone for 20 minutes and is disruptive that is the
>> problem, no matter the place.
>>
>>
>
> The other day we were in a restaurant and there was a blaring ringtone
> and the person answered in a loud voice. They kept going for at least
> 15 minutes and spoke loud enough to ensure everyone in the restaurant
> knew how important they were.

I have no idea why people think talking on a cell phone makes them
"important", but it's true. And the attitude has been going on for a very
long time. Remember those big clunky phones in the 1980's that were the
precursor for cell phones as we now know them? Hardly anyone had them back
then. I remember having lunch with friends one day and the man at the next
table kept up a very loud conversation on his phone. It was clear he wanted
people to know how important he was since he just *had* to be reached to
conduct business during lunch.

I wonder how long it took for him to develop an ulcer? Lunch should be time
to relax. Or, do it the old fashioned way - take the person to lunch and
talk business over a couple of martoonis

Jill

On 2007-06-01, jmcquown > wrote:

> table kept up a very loud conversation on his phone. It was clear he wanted
> people to know how important he was since he just *had* to be reached to
> conduct business during lunch.

Ya sure, you betchya! Remember how in those days you could actually buy
dummy cellphones to use while tooling down the road in your convertible to
look so cool and trendy? Whatabuncha dolts!

nb

jmcquown > wrote:

>I have no idea why people think talking on a cell phone makes them
>"important", but it's true.

There was a study (or at least once study) on this once.
It got some press after an incident a few years back when
a woman would not get off her cellphone while seated in an
airliner that needed to take off. Despite urging and protests
of the crew she would not end the phonecall.

The "expert" analysis is that some (many?) people have a
fundamental desire to identify a special group of people who
are automatically more important than anyone else. This group
always includes oneself naturally. For normal people this might
be their family, or their good friends or life partners, and
this group identification results in predictable and socially
acceptable behavior. But for some fraction of people their
internal concept of "who is important" abnormally morphs into
bizarre things like "participants in the current phonecall",
thus resulting in bad judgement with respect to behavior
during phonecalls. It's very hard to modify this behavior
because it ties into some survival center in the brain where
a person actually believes something dire will happen if they
don't give the identified group absolute top priority.

Could be psychobabble on the other hand it does explain some things.

Steve

George wrote:
>
>
> > And that can be done in 15 seconds or less. It is the loudmouth that talks
> > on the phone for 20 minutes and is disruptive that is the problem, no matter
> > the place.
> >
> >
> Unfortunately like most things a few give everyone a bad name. I put my
> phone in manner mode or just turn it off when in a restaurant etc. That
> way I can look at the CID and go outside to call them back.

That is a hard one to judge accurately because we really have no idea how
many people are packing cell phones. You would not likely know that I have
one, because it is rarely turned on, I don't use it while driving and I
don't use it around other people. If I need to make a call I slip outside
to do so. I am sure there are lots of others who do the same. Then there
are those who think they are too important to turn theirs off or like to
think they look important with them. And then there are those idiotic
chatterboxes who can't exist without a phone glued to their ears.

Dave Smith wrote:
> George wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And that can be done in 15 seconds or less. It is the loudmouth
>>> that talks on the phone for 20 minutes and is disruptive that is
>>> the problem, no matter the place.
>>>
>>>
>> Unfortunately like most things a few give everyone a bad name. I put
>> my phone in manner mode or just turn it off when in a restaurant
>> etc. That way I can look at the CID and go outside to call them back.
>
> That is a hard one to judge accurately because we really have no idea
> how many people are packing cell phones. You would not likely know
> that I have one, because it is rarely turned on, I don't use it while
> driving and I don't use it around other people. If I need to make a
> call I slip outside to do so. I am sure there are lots of others who
> do the same. Then there are those who think they are too important to
> turn theirs off or like to think they look important with them. And
> then there are those idiotic chatterboxes who can't exist without a
> phone glued to their ears.

Speaking of glued to their ears, what about those ridiculous EarBud phones
that go IN the ear? I was at the grocery store one day and a woman said,
"Hi!" and I replied "Hi!" before I realized she'd just gotten a phone call
and wasn't saying hi to me. She had one of those things stuck to the side
of her head. LOL

Jill

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:


> That is a hard one to judge accurately because we really have no idea how
> many people are packing cell phones.

I live a block from an elementary school. I am continually amazed at
how many little kids carry cell phones.


> You would not likely know that I have
> one, because it is rarely turned on, I don't use it while driving and I
> don't use it around other people.

I wear my cell phone on my belt and keep it on all the time, except when
there is live music or a speaker. I don't answer it while driving, as I
don't have that talent, but I will pull off the road when I find a safe
place and call back. When I am talking to someone and it rings, I
ignore it and call back later.


> If I need to make a call I slip outside
> to do so. I am sure there are lots of others who do the same. Then there
> are those who think they are too important to turn theirs off or like to
> think they look important with them. And then there are those idiotic
> chatterboxes who can't exist without a phone glued to their ears.

To me, half of a conversation is the facial expressions and other body
language. A long cell phone conversation for me is 30 seconds. I do
talk to my sister for much longer, because I don't have the money to fly
900 miles more than once a year or so.

In article > ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Miche" > wrote in message
> >
> > On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my daughter, I
> > may need it to tell my husband where we are.
> >
> > Miche
>
> And that can be done in 15 seconds or less.

Yes, and that's how long it takes me. In the majority of cases, most
people would never know I'd been using my cellphone.

> It is the loudmouth that talks
> on the phone for 20 minutes and is disruptive that is the problem, no matter
> the place.

Absolutely, and I dislike them as much as everyone else.

I just dislike being lumped in with those people just because I have a
cellphone and am not afraid to use it.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

Miche wrote:
>
> On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my daughter, I
> may need it to tell my husband where we are.
>

Of course, because one of your worlds will collapse if you are not in
constant contact.
I can't tell you the number of inane conversations I have been subjected to
one side of by cell phones users just have to gab to stay in touch with
their friends. I have never been interested in having vacuous conversations
with my own friends, so I sure as hell don't want to be listening to
someone else have one, at high volume, with someone else.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Miche wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my
>> daughter, I may need it to tell my husband where we are.
>>
>
> Of course, because one of your worlds will collapse if you are not in
> constant contact.

If it's an emergency that's one thing. A routine doctor's visit shouldn't
necessitate a phone call. Oh, and the other thing, at least at my doctor's
office, there are signs everywhere requesting all cell phones be turned off
because they can interfere with the medical equipment being used. What did
people do when there were no cell phones? They used a pay phone or the
phone at the doctor's office to make the call.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
>

> > Of course, because one of your worlds will collapse if you are not in
> > constant contact.
>
> If it's an emergency that's one thing. A routine doctor's visit shouldn't
> necessitate a phone call.

Exactly. If it is just an routine appointment most people should need to
call home and report on it, even if they are running a little late. Heaven
forbid the person call before getting to the office, perhaps outside the
building or in the lobby.

> Oh, and the other thing, at least at my doctor's
> office, there are signs everywhere requesting all cell phones be turned off
> because they can interfere with the medical equipment being used. What did
> people do when there were no cell phones? They used a pay phone or the
> phone at the doctor's office to make the call.


I am so unaccustomed to carrying my cell phone that one day last week I had
to call my wife from a tire shop to tell her than I was leaving my lawn
tractor tire there and could she please pick it up on her way home, that I
didn't realize I had the phone in my pocket and used their phone.

Dave Smith > scripsit in
:

> Exactly. If it is just an routine appointment most people should
> need to call home and report on it, even if they are running a
> little late. Heaven forbid the person call before getting to the
> office, perhaps outside the building or in the lobby.

So, we LIKE making up little rules for others to follow, I see :-) Do
you carry a cane to strike them with if they transgress? What is your
position on licking stamps in public or stepping on cracks in the
sidewalk?

I am assuming you mean "shouldn't need to call home", otherwise your
statement is contradictory (which is the kind of tory we are stuck with
nowadays).

--

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

jmcquown wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>Miche wrote:
>>
>>>On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my
>>>daughter, I may need it to tell my husband where we are.
>>>
>>
>>Of course, because one of your worlds will collapse if you are not in
>>constant contact.
>
>
> If it's an emergency that's one thing. A routine doctor's visit shouldn't
> necessitate a phone call. Oh, and the other thing, at least at my doctor's
> office, there are signs everywhere requesting all cell phones be turned off
> because they can interfere with the medical equipment being used. What did
> people do when there were no cell phones? They used a pay phone or the
> phone at the doctor's office to make the call.

Last time I had to take one of the kids to the dr. the waiting room was
just packed. The usual admonitions to "Turn off your cell phones" are
posted.

This twenty-some-odd chick's cell phone rings and she launches into a
protracted high-volume whinge about how much she wanted to go to Cancun
with her friends only her parents wouldn't let her because her wedding
was going to be soooo expensive, they're just mean, oh woe is me, etc.
etc. etc.

So I cross eyes with the guy sitting opposite and he holds his hand up
and gestures "the world's smallest violin playing a sad song just for her".

I'm glad I wasn't eating or drinking. To my credit, I didn't start
giggling until both my righthand and lefthand neighbors cracked up.

Did it faze her? Maybe a *tiny* bit. She glowered in our general
direction and did a 180 to face the other end of the waiting room.
There was no reduction in volume or change of topic. By this time
anybody not immersed in a 3 year-old Reader's Digest was frankly and
overtly following the conversation and chiming in with their own comments.

Finally the nurse called her name and she rang off with a final comment
about how rude some people were.

I don't know if it did anything to reduce the overall rudeness of modern
society but it was certainly more entertaining than the magazines.

On 2007-06-01, Kathleen > wrote:

> Last time I had to take one of the kids to the dr. the waiting room was
> just packed. The usual admonitions to "Turn off your cell phones" are
> posted.

[great anecdote snipped]

> I don't know if it did anything to reduce the overall rudeness of modern
> society but it was certainly more entertaining than the magazines.

....and shows the general attitude towards CPDs (cell phone drones).

(Hey, I just made up an acronym!

nb

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:


> > Miche wrote:
> >>
> >> On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my
> >> daughter, I may need it to tell my husband where we are.

> If it's an emergency that's one thing. A routine doctor's visit shouldn't
> necessitate a phone call. Oh, and the other thing, at least at my doctor's
> office, there are signs everywhere requesting all cell phones be turned off
> because they can interfere with the medical equipment being used.

I thought that also, but I don't believe it is true. Some people will
pick up their cell phones anytime they ring, even if they are in the
middle of a conversation with their doctor. And then they have a long
conversation, while the doctor waits impatiently. No, shutting off the
cell appears to be for the purpose of not causing a patient backup while
people yack on the phone.

In many of the medical offices I've been to, the signs requesting that
cell phones be turned off are on the doors leading to the exam rooms,
not in the waiting room.

Dan Abel said...

> In article >,
> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>
>> > Miche wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my
>> >> daughter, I may need it to tell my husband where we are.
>
>> If it's an emergency that's one thing. A routine doctor's visit
>> shouldn't necessitate a phone call. Oh, and the other thing, at least
>> at my doctor's office, there are signs everywhere requesting all cell
>> phones be turned off because they can interfere with the medical
>> equipment being used.
>
> I thought that also, but I don't believe it is true. Some people will
> pick up their cell phones anytime they ring, even if they are in the
> middle of a conversation with their doctor. And then they have a long
> conversation, while the doctor waits impatiently. No, shutting off the
> cell appears to be for the purpose of not causing a patient backup while
> people yack on the phone.
>
> In many of the medical offices I've been to, the signs requesting that
> cell phones be turned off are on the doors leading to the exam rooms,
> not in the waiting room.


Most cellphones can be directed to transfer incoming calls immediately to
voice mail. I imagine that's hard for some folks who can't stand being out
of touch for a moment. The BUMS!!!

Andy
Please leave a message

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
> > Miche wrote:
> >>
> >> On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my
> >> daughter, I may need it to tell my husband where we are.
> >>
> >
> > Of course, because one of your worlds will collapse if you are not in
> > constant contact.
>
> If it's an emergency that's one thing. A routine doctor's visit shouldn't
> necessitate a phone call.

It might if it turns out not to be a routine visit.

> Oh, and the other thing, at least at my doctor's
> office, there are signs everywhere requesting all cell phones be turned off
> because they can interfere with the medical equipment being used.

Not at any doctor's office I've seen in New Zealand.

> What did
> people do when there were no cell phones? They used a pay phone or the
> phone at the doctor's office to make the call.

Pay phones here are few and far between. And yes, a person can use a
phone in the doctor's office, if there's time.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

Miche wrote:
> In article >,
> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> Miche wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my
>>>> daughter, I may need it to tell my husband where we are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, because one of your worlds will collapse if you are not
>>> in constant contact.
>>
>> If it's an emergency that's one thing. A routine doctor's visit
>> shouldn't necessitate a phone call.
>
> It might if it turns out not to be a routine visit.
>
>> Oh, and the other thing, at least at my doctor's
>> office, there are signs everywhere requesting all cell phones be
>> turned off because they can interfere with the medical equipment
>> being used.
>
> Not at any doctor's office I've seen in New Zealand.
>
And here I thought you folks were so much more on top of things!

>> What did
>> people do when there were no cell phones? They used a pay phone or
>> the phone at the doctor's office to make the call.
>
> Pay phones here are few and far between. And yes, a person can use a
> phone in the doctor's office, if there's time.
>
> Miche

Time for what?! CPR? An emergency heart transplant?!

Give me a break. A routine doctor's appointment doesn't require a
minute-to-minute play-by-play pronouncement over a cell phone. Sorry. It's
a kid getting shots or maybe has a cold or the flu or an ear infection. All
routine stuff. I just don't see a cell phone and a call to the husband
being a necessity, unless you want to ask him to pick up some prescriptions
on his way home. Then step outside, call, and ask him to do so.

Jill

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Miche wrote:
> >
> > On the contrary. If I'm in a doctor's waiting room with my daughter, I
> > may need it to tell my husband where we are.
> >
>
> Of course, because one of your worlds will collapse if you are not in
> constant contact.

If we ended up going to hospital, it would be nice for him to know.

I have been in a couple of situations where having a cellphone has made
life much, much easier, both times including travel plans that fell
through due to weather and involved me being away from home overnight
unexpectedly.

> I can't tell you the number of inane conversations I have been subjected to
> one side of by cell phones users just have to gab to stay in touch with
> their friends. I have never been interested in having vacuous conversations
> with my own friends, so I sure as hell don't want to be listening to
> someone else have one, at high volume, with someone else.

That's nice. I'm not one of those people.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper