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

On 2007-05-31, Gregory Morrow > wrote:
> 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...

OTOH, the Brits have yet to protest the relentless incursion of video
cameras in their lives. The place is becoming a regular THX1138
scenario. One segment of the population watching the other. depending
on the work shift. I've yet to hear much protest on that front and
we're next. Cellphone cameras are bad enough, but they aren't
typically in the hands of our we-know-what's-best-for-you govt.

nb

notbob > wrote:

>OTOH, the Brits have yet to protest the relentless incursion of video
>cameras in their lives.

Sure they have.

Steve

notbob wrote:

> On 2007-05-31, Gregory Morrow > wrote:
> > 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...
>
> OTOH, the Brits have yet to protest the relentless incursion of video
> cameras in their lives. The place is becoming a regular THX1138
> scenario. One segment of the population watching the other. depending
> on the work shift. I've yet to hear much protest on that front and
> we're next. Cellphone cameras are bad enough, but they aren't
> typically in the hands of our we-know-what's-best-for-you govt.
>


IIRC the Dutch were really the first to have a large number of vidcams
monitoring public places, at one time recently they had more per capita than
anybody. Not many in Holland were alarmed at this trend...

As for the UK, from what I've read the guvmint plans to have practically all
major roadways surveilled by vidcams...IIRC in London they are used to
enforce the fees the city levies on private vehicles entering central
London.

--
Best
Greg

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

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

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.

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

Dave Smith > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> 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.

True, but on the other hand Kent State proved to be a turning
point, starting a shift in mood and a process that eventually
ended the war.

Not that I'm arguing for a repeat. (Plus, I'm not sure the public
would care anymore.)

Steve

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.

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.

In article >,
says...
> 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.
>

Indeed - and we're in just such a situation once again today where
protest zones are setup far beyond the main venue. It's disgraceful if
you ask me.

And whatever happened to those Nat'l Guard troops who fired on the
students at Kent State? I never recall having read about that.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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

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, 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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>
> > 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?

No, but if I am with someone I make sure that we raise our voices enough so
that we are interrupting their conversation and much as they were
interrupting ours. It is not a matter of making rules, just a matter of
them having a modicum of respect for the people around them.

> What is your position on licking stamps in public or stepping on cracks in the
> sidewalk?

No problem, unless they make a lot of needless noise while doing so. :-)

In article >, Andy <q> wrote:

> Dan Abel said...

> > 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.

AFAIK, cell phones only emit signals under three conditions:

1. When you turn them on
2. When you move from one cell to another (generally involves driving,
unless your medical facility is several miles long)
3. When you are talking

Cell phones do not emit signals just because they are turned on.

Dan Abel wrote:

>
> Cell phones do not emit signals just because they are turned on.

The older cell phones *could* affect some vents, IV pumps and monitors
it was found. But over the years technology has improved greatly and my
understanding is that banning cell phones is generally unneeded. I can
only think of one particular vent (HFOV) used infrequently at my
hospital that we still protect from cell phone transmissions. Patients,
family members, and medical staff use cell phones almost as much as land
lines anymore.

On 2007-06-01, Dan Abel > wrote:

> Cell phones do not emit signals just because they are turned on.

Silly you!

http://tinyurl.com/y487y3

also....

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Spyware/index.php?p=804

....but wait, there's more.....

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html

.......not to mention....

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-15-2006-89039.asp

Maybe a cell doesn't technically emit a signal when turned on, but does it
need to?

nb

In article <dabel-A8170D.13482601062007@cor8-
ppp5025.per.dsl.connect.net.au>, says...
> AFAIK, cell phones only emit signals under three conditions:
>
> 1. When you turn them on
> 2. When you move from one cell to another (generally involves driving,
> unless your medical facility is several miles long)
> 3. When you are talking
>
> Cell phones do not emit signals just because they are turned on.
>

I don't believe this is true. Cell phones communicate regularly with the
local cell to inform the network that they are on and available.

Have you noticed that when you call someone whose cell phone is turned
off you are immediately transferred to voice mail, without waiting for a
certain number of rings?



--
Peter Aitken