BS: Cell phones, opinions

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: JudyB
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 07:16 PM

I have a Tracfone - you pay about $100 for a phone and 400 minutes that you can use over the next year. You can buy more minutes as needed (at $100 for 400 minutes or a higher rate per minute for less minutes - but there's no monthly charge). I don't use it much (which is why 400 minutes/year is plenty) but it's worked most places I've tried it. I think that's more a function of the type of phone than the network, as Tracfones work on most US networks - I have a Nokia brand phone. I occasionally work long hours and drive home late at night - I feel much safer with my tiny phone in my purse.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: EBarnacle
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 06:49 PM

The emergency issue and lack of service in public emergencies so far has ignored the real answer presently available--Become an amateur radio operator. It always works as long as there is power, you do not pay by the minute and it is portable. It cannot be used for business and is encouraged for all civil service activities. All you have to do is pass a relatively simple test to become a "technician."
How much you wish to upgrade your equipment is entirely up to you. There is a large unrecognized social group scattered all over the world just waiting to talk with you.

Lady Hillary has just about talked me into joining in.

On a recent trip to Mooseland, including Kendall and Jacqui's area, my cingular phone was a piece of crap but Lady Hillary's Verizon worked perfectly. Ditto in South Jersey and many other areas. I have since switched to a Verizon Family plan with Lady Hillary and only had one drop in 3 months. My Cingular contract had expired and they were threatening me with all sorts of dire consequences if I did not upgrade.

So I upgraded away from them.

re: The court issue. The judge is expected to concentrate on the issues before him, without distraction.
In medical offices, cell phones may interact with electronic equipment, causing false readings. Live without the phone for a few minutes unless you see the doctor using one in the office. Then, al bets are off.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Becca72
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 05:34 PM

Observer, I answered the original request 2 days ago. Don't blame the thread drift on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 05:08 PM

I don't take it as a personal affront, and I have all the info I need to make my choice, so this thread is no longer needed (by Me).

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 04:42 PM

I believe the information for you came at the beginning of the thread. Conversations involving lots of people evolve and drift. It is not a personal affront, Kendall. There are dozens of people in this conversation. Including your daughter

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Kim C
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 04:29 PM

I think just about everyone has an opinion about what companies they like & don't like. Maybe visit the different providers' websites and compare similar plans --- someone's always running a deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: MMario
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 04:14 PM

Kendall - every area is different;

For example, we live about 300 yards from a cell phone tower - but do NOT get cell phone service at our house from ANY company we have tried.

What works best it so find locals with the phone service you are interested and see what kind of signal they get at your place. Cingular obviously won't cut it for you unless you don't want to get phone calls at home.


(The tower also hosts wireless internet - and the company couldn't get a signal when they surveyed our site. wierd...)

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 04:10 PM

And once again the mal contents have hijacked another thread.
I started this to gather information on the different cell phone companies so I can make an informed choice of which one to go with. You have a right to your opinion on the use of phones, but I'm not really interested in it. I want information, not rants.

Joe, I guess the string has run out on this one, you can close it for all I care.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Kim C
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 03:12 PM

It's HIPAA. Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: GUEST,hippa user
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 02:47 PM

Listening to another's conversation in a doctort's office is not a violation of anyone's HIPPA rights. It is merely an exhibitionistic demonstration. Briefly, HIPPA rights are held by the patient and refer to the use of their private medical information without their consent. HIPPA does not cover the quality of privacy in a waiting room with regard to someone else talking on a cell phone.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Kim C
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 01:54 PM

"From her comments she was making arrangement with the caller for a date with him the next day!"

Maybe she was talking to her father? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: PoppaGator
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 01:45 PM

I've got to agree with Greg about the waiting room.

I am absolutely willing to turn the phone off once my name is called and I go into the examinatin room, just as I am happy and willing to so at the table or in the movie theater, the church, the courtroom, etc. But to be required to "turn off" while cooling my heels in an outer lobby is entirely unreasonable ~ especially when the nominal appointment time has come and gone! (And, regardless of who's at fault or why the schedule has been disrupted.)

For that matter, it's aggrevating enough to be called from the waiting room and ushered to the next stop, only to sit and wait (sometimes cold and half-naked) for 10-15-20 minutes before actually "being seen."

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Greg B
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 01:08 PM

Becca, you display the sort of "our time is valuable" attitude
which causes physicians to wonder why, when they do so much good,
they're patients don't love them so much.

Trotting out HIPPA is sort of like playing the 'National Security'
card; the use of a camera phone is out. However, if I can hear a
privileged conversation well enough that it would be carried over
my mobile phone, then you've already violated HIPPA. So that doesn't
wash.

Bottom line: my time, I'm the customer (you guys DO so tend to
forget who pays those exorbitant fees and keeps the docs in Mercedes
and Porsches) and what I do with my waiting time, within reason,
is up to me.

Am I of 'such importance?'

Perhaps.

Perhaps I'm a parent, waiting for a call about my child.

Perhaps I'm an executive, coming to the office during work hours
(you know, the work that pays the insurance premium that pay those
receivables?) because the Doc keeps banker's hours. Perhaps it's
just really none of your business and and I don't have to subject
my need to remain in touch during the waiting room 'down time' to
your evaluation and/or derision.

That's it!

There's the answer.

It's really none of your business. I'm the customer, and I do get
to make some of the rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Becca72
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 12:47 PM

Greg, you've obviously never worked in a doctor's office. You'd be amazed at the "behind the scenes" goings on. The doctor I work for is very rarely behind schedule and when he is it is generally because a patient was late which log-jams the rest of the day or a patient has a lot of questions and runs over his/her alloted time. Bottom line is it's our lobby, our rules. No cell phones allowed. If you are of such importance that you MUST receive a call while waiting here you can take it outside. You are also violating your fellow "waiters" HIPPA rights, at least here in the States. Also, if you must remain absolutely in touch at all times then one would assume you'd think ahead to give people the land line phone number of the place you'll be (at the very least because certain areas have no cell reception).

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Greg B
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 10:57 AM

There is a time and a place for everything.

But that doesn't mean that everyone gets their pet peeves accommodated in any fashion they choose.

Cell phone calls in restaurants merit either sending it to voice mail, or stepping into the lobby. Not the least of which choice is whether you feel you should give your dining experience and companion(s) your full attention.

One thing I resent about phones in general, and cell-phones in particular, is that the phone takes precedence over the conversation being engaged in or the service being rendered. Somehow, the caller is allowed to 'cut in line' or automatically becomes the winner for attention.

On the other hand, Becca, a doctor's waiting room is just that--- a place where customers wait for services to be rendered. Quite often, it seems, that the service business of which it is a part is sufficiently badly-organized and self-centered such that 'patient' is a term which applies in more ways than one.

Many doctors and their office staff feel free to waste 30, 45 minutes and more of a customer's valuable time because they're not sufficiently organized to keep to a schedule.

That time is not the doctor's time, and it's not your time, it's my time. So sign notwithstanding, I feel perfectly free to conduct a conversation on my mobile phone at a volume which is no louder than one I'd have with a person in the chair next to me. The fact that you can eavesdrop only one side of the conversation, and it annoys you is your problem. "Tough," as you say, "shit." This is particular the case when the time of the appointment (for which I'm polite enough to arrive on time) comes and goes.

Library reading-rooms are no place for cell-phone conversations, however use of a scrambler/jammer is over the top, and probably illegal. The FCC does not look kindly on what is termed 'malicious interference' with a duly-licensed mobile radio service; your little jammer requires a license, which you can't legally obtain.

In addition, suppose I'm in your fine institution with my mobile phone in my lapel pocket and set to 'vibrate' when a call or text message comes in.

Suppose I'm a physician on emergency call.
Suppose YOUR jammer prevents me from receiving a page.

Or maybe I'm a volunteer firefighter or paramedic, also on call.

You'd be legally and morally liable, particularly if your device was deemed to be in violation of FCC regulations.

Or, suppose some nut-job comes into the library and threatens harm to the patrons down at the far end. They have cell phones, but can't use them to summon help, because YOU installed a jamming device.

Seems to me that this 'cell phone users are self-absorbed' thing
cuts two ways...

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 08:21 AM

Greg likes to argue. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 09:23 PM

Greg, you are either missing or ignoring a very important distinction. The Judge warned the folks that these are the rules in his courtroom. He did this before the day began. This is well within the bounds of judicial conduct, in fact it is excellent conduct. If he didn't warn and then went crazy on someone and hit them with contempt, that would be misconduct. To go further on this argument will earn you the nickname of Quixote.

Love,

Sancho P.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 08:13 PM

Damned few calls are so important that you have to make or take them when you're dining or talking with someone else (talk about rude!). And if you do so in church, or in court, or in any of a number of similar situations you deserve what you get.

I understand that there is now a cell-phone-service scrambling paint as well as a physical signal scrambler. I will install one or the other in the Library when I know more about them -- not in the foyer, where you're allowed to make and take cell phone calls, but definitely elsewhere in the building.

I heard a woman, obviously at dinner with a date, talking to another guy on her cell phone. From her comments she was making arrangement with the caller for a date with him the next day!

We used to call such behavior "rude."

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: PoppaGator
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 06:24 PM

I was interested to read Bee's post, saying that land-line phones were the only technology working in the aftermath of Hurricane Juan.

My experience with Katrina was quite the opposite. All the land-line service in New Orelans was knocked out for months. Cell service, for regular "voice" calls, was also unavailable for a good while ~ maybe a week or so ~ but cellular text messaging service was uninterrupted, or only briefly interrupted.

Interesting: Cell phone service for all 504-area-code numbers was impacted regardless of the actual location of the phone. Our son who was living in Brooklyn NY had a 504 (i.e., south Louisiana area) phone as part of our T-Mobile family plan, and he was reduced to text-only capability just like people who were in New Orleans, or who had been in New Orleans until evacuating in every direction just before the storm.

Until Katrina, I never used a cell phone and had the kind of quasi-Luddite options about cell phones that a few folks in this thread have expressed. My wife and kids had 'em, but not me. I got my first cell phone a couple of weeks after the storm and have been using it ever since.

After more than a year during which we did not have the option of using a land-line phone at home, we are now consicously choosing not to reinstall one. Whereas the cell phone, in past years, seemed to be a needless extra expense, in the new post-Katrina world, it's the old-fashioned landlocked telephone that represents an extra monthly bill that we don't need to sign up for.

A major catastophe sort of jump-started us into a new era, but I think the same thing will happen more gradually for the rest of the world. As cell service becomes more and more reliable and cost-effective, people will gradually abandon the older technology.

My take on the calling-while-driving controversy: It really shouldn't be any more distracting than speaking with another person in the car with you, which no reasonable person would object to. However, we've all observed drivers who are visibly very distracted by their cell phone conversations.

My personal feelings about my own experiences conversing while driving: I wouldn't think of dialing while moving on the road, and recognize that answering can be distracting and requires extra care and attention, but I really don't feel at all impaired by carrying on brief conversations. I do make it a point not to go on at length if I take a call while behind the wheel, and I'm always conscious that my attention is primarily focused on the road and only secondarily on the phone ~ exactly like when I'm conversing with a live person in the car with me.

I don't have a hands-free device, and probably should get one; a reasonably careful person equipped with such a device should certainly be able to talk and drive about as easily and competantly as to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Becca72
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 06:06 PM

Sounds to me like Greg B is one of those (ahem) people who feel it is their god-given right to talk on the phone no matter what is going on around them.

The doctor's office I'm working in has posted signs in the lobby "Please turn off your cell phone". This is not for any medical reason, it's due to the fact that we've had many assholes sit in the lobby and carry on loud conversations about things that no one else needs hear about. It is a distraction for the rest of the population and therefore not allowed. If you don't like it, tough shit. Wait outside.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Greg B
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 05:44 PM

Fair warning, if you eat egg-salad sandwich and chew with your
mouth open, I'm going to hit you in the head with my cocobolo wood
melodeon until you pass out.

So...that makes it okay?

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 05:27 PM

Thast Judge simply gave fair warning. No more, no less, and in that he was not out of line.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Greg B
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 05:10 PM

That's why I used the 'corruption' word.

In order to ensure an independent judiciary, there has to be a
rather large amount of latitude given (much as is the case for
academic freedom).

That opens the opportunity for abuse of power (as does academic
freedom).

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Midchuck
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:57 PM

In my opinion, a judge would not be out of line to forbid cell phones in the courtroom at all. Nor would he/she/it be out of line to find a person in contempt if the person were warned to turn off the ringer and intentionally failed to do so.

To hold a person in contempt because the person made an honest try to turn off the ringer and did it wrong, would, IMO, be an abuse of judicial power. But a certain portion of the population are utter assholes, and the selection process is not perfect, so some of them make it to the bench.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: MMario
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:44 PM

Considering that many courts do not even ALLOW you to carry a cell phone into the courtroom, I don't think the judge is out of line at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Greg B
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:21 PM

Sorcha, you can say 'his court his rules' all you like but that
isn't reality. There are standards of judicial conduct and
there are notions of proportionality which pertain to them.

Cartoonish behavior, whether it's getting all teary over
Anna Nichole Smith or having a hard-on for anybody whose
cell-phone might make a momentary peep because its owner
made a good-faith mistake just makes a mockery of the
institution which you purport to revere.

In any case, Kendall, your neighbors who use their mobile phones
in a manner similar to the way you want to use yours are your best
advisers as to carrier and handset.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Kim C
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 12:24 PM

We have had good luck with Verizon here in the Southeast.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: MMario
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 11:07 AM

I rarely answer the land line at home (I get about 3 calls a year - so I'm pretty sure it's not for me), though I do answer it when we are expecting "important" calls.

I have a cell phone for work - which is nice because that means I have it for emergencies. (Why I have a cell phone at work I can't figure out, since a) when we got it we didn't have service in our building and b) I'm at a desk with landlines.)

But even though a bunch of my friends have my number - they also know that it's turned off outside of business hours under normal conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: jacqui.c
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 10:54 AM

Kendall also has a 'secretary' to filter out the callers he doesn't want to talk to.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 10:45 AM

Liz, I have reached the age where I don't feel obligated to answer the phone. Damn few calls are that important anyway, and we have an answering machine to screen out the dipshits who dialed the wrong number.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 10:42 AM

If I'm in a queue at the bank I'm glad that the tellers are dealing with the 'live' customers in preference to the telephone. Does anyone remember Keith Waterhouse's man with the red beard who always got attended to first?

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Bee
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 07:41 AM

We have a cell phone, purchased for when my husband is working in far away places.

Joe Offer, I don't recommend getting rid of your land line - after Hurricane Juan, our landline, and everyone else's in the stricken area, was the only technology that functioned. It was a week before cell service was fixed, and eleven days before the power was repaired.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 01:13 AM

It's an indication of how slavish we've become to the Mighty Telephone that no matter what we are doing, if our 'phone rings, we feel compelled to answer it - unless you work in my doctors surgery, but that's a whole other jar of worms. Have you never stood in line at a store or bank and wished the tellers would just answer the damned telephone?!

There are places where 'phones should not be available. A courtroom does not have a telephone in it, so why should mobiles/cells be permitted. The only time a judge needs to hear a telephone is when he's waiting in the execution chamber for the call to tell him 'stay'. If you were meant to receive 'phone calls during a trial, a movie, surgery, religious services etc, then there would be one in the room. If there is no telephone in the room, then it's fair to say it's a room for doing things that don't need 'phones and mobiles/cells come under that category.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Sorcha
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 09:33 PM

Alice, I agree! Cell phone in the proper time and place.

Kendall, I agree. I think I might know that judge.

Greg, I do NOT agree. Judge was well within his provenance. His court, his rules. Cell phones in court do not belong. In the local Federal court you are warned that if you are carrying one, it will be confiscated. Also knitting needles, scissors, pocket knices, lap tops, etc etc etc. Just don't muckle about with the courts. Anywhere. Anytime.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Alice
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 09:06 PM

In our company, you must turn your cell phone off during meetings, conferences, or training classes.
If your cell phone rings during one of the above, you have to stand in front of
the group and sing I'm A Little Teapot.
At our annual company conference this year, the president of the company,
who was sitting in the front of a gathering of over 500, had his cell phone ring.
He got on stage and sang I'm a Little Teapot.

This winter, I was stranded on a highway when the alternator went out in my car.
I was in a signal area and able to call my Insurance company on the cell phone.
They called the nearest city where a tow truck could drive out and tow me in.
The sun went down and I sat for hours in the cold and dark before the truck found me.
No one passing by stopped to see what was wrong of if I needed help.
I'm glad I had that cell phone and it worked.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Midchuck
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 08:05 PM

I've been in many courtrooms and I approve of this almost sacred place.

...and never actually had to serve time. Must have had excellent lawyers.

Seriously, I agree. I just wish all the judges did.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: kendall
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 07:44 PM

When one enters a courtroom one should be aware that this is not some pub or other joint. It demands the utmost respect. I've been in many courtrooms and I approve of this almost sacred place.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Grab
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 07:31 PM

A court is a pretty specialised environment. If I was in the dock, I really wouldn't want to end up in jail because some dickhead's mobile phone put my lawyer off and made him forget to ask an important question. As far as I'm concerned, failure to turn a mobile off in a place where being able to hear without distractions is 100% contempt for those around you. In a cinema or concert, it's merely ignorant but has no other impact. In court, you're talking about debating someone's future, and failure to make that connection is contempt for the system.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Greg B
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 06:14 PM

Kendall, I only have a problem with authority when it is applied
imperiously, as citing someone whose phone rings for contempt is.

"Contempt of court" should be reserved for that which is truly
contemptuous, and not utilized on a whim for a minor irritation.

My idea of corruption is the mis-use of authority for personal
reasons, be it gain or simply shaping the world to one's whims.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: kendall
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 04:09 PM

Greg B. sounds like you have a problem with authority.
He was well within his rights to warn us before the proceedings that such interruptions would not be tolerated. As a result, no cell phones went off during the hearing.If he had not made such an announcement, and a cell phone did ring during court, and he charged the offending dingbat with contempt, that might be considered over the top. As it was, no incident took place. A word to the wise is how I saw it.
You have a funny idea about what constitutes corruption!

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Midchuck
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 12:52 PM

I just came back from lunch, during which I watched out the window of the sammich shop, a guy jaywalking across a city street in the middle of the block, talking on his phone all the way across. Couldn't believe it.

Not that I'm about to be preachy about jaywalking, it's one of my own bad habits. But I damn well focus on the traffic when I do it.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 12:46 PM

I have Cingular and have had no problems. I hate my cell phone. It is an invasion of my privacy. But it came close to saving my life this past winter when I left work mid-blizzard to find my car battery dead. Called AAA and was up and running within 15 minutes. Without the phone I would have spent a very uncomfortable night though I had my winter emergency kit.

Sorcha has a point. I do not see the need to talk non-stop on the thing. Everywhere you go people are walking, driving, doing whatrever and talking on the cell about what Joan wore to the party and the boss's latest goof-up. Totally unnecessary crap. But they can.

They can as long they don't involve me in an accident or cause me to run them over when they walk stupidly into my path without warning. Mostly I hate the shouted conversations.

Reminds me - mine is dead again. Have to charge it or it doesn't work. Another drawback.

SINS

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Becca72
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 11:59 AM

I have been with Verizon Wireless for over 6 years now and love them. I get a signal in places where others have complained they get none. I get a signal in your living room, Dad. I've never had anything but good experiences with them. Also because your youngest daughter and your son-in-law are customers you could call them free of charge... :-)

I actually dumped my land line a few months ago and use only a cell phone now. I have 450 "anytime" minutes and I don't think I've ever used them all (which shows you how much I talk on the phone).

I got my VW phone when living at the northern tip of Vermont and driving back to southern Maine every 6 weeks or so (alone). I had coverage the entire trip.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Greg B
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 11:42 AM

I suspect that a judge finding someone whose cell-phone went
off during proceedings in contempt could, in turn, find himself
charged with judicial misconduct. There's a word for that kind
of abuse of power: 'corruption.'

What about people with 'chime' watches, or 'alarm' watches?

It borders on the ridiculous, what people become offended by.
And they make the problem worse by their own self-righteousness.

Instead of just taking the phone out and hitting the 'silence'
button, which takes less than a second, people are now to be so
ashamed of their over-sight that they just let the damned thing ring
away in their pocket rather than face the disapproving glare of their
neighbors--- whose own phones rang in the middle of a meeting the
previous week.

It's gotten to be like farting in an elevator.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: kendall
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 07:16 AM

I was an observer in a court case a few years ago, and as soon as the judge was seated he made this announcement:
"I suggest you turn your cell phone off. If it rings during these proceedings, you will be charged with contempt."

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: guitar
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 04:10 AM

I just use my mobile phone when there isn't a public near by, it's very seldom that I use it.

and now they say that walking an using a mobile/cell phone is just as dangerous as driving with one

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 04:01 AM

Ah Kendall... you have to wonder about your relationship with the lovely Jacqui... she'll go in the sea up to her armpits for Seamus, but for you, she won't even sit in the sink. The dog has it, mate.... you just might as well stay in that basement for ever!

As for phones at funerals - it's become part of the service now to ask for phones to be switched off...

Ashes to Ashes, dust to dust,
Turn off the phone or I'll bury it fust.

Here's my contribution - to the tune of 'A long time ago'...

Well I thought I heard a mobile phone
And you think so, and you know so
Well it rang in the middle of me journey home
A long time it rang

Well I thought I heard the owner say
And you think so, and you know so
I'm on the train love, I'm on my way
A long time it rang

Well I said 'To me that phone you'll pass
And you think so, and you know so
And I stuffed it where the sun don't shine
A long time it rang!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 01:10 AM

One of the damned things was going off during a funeral I attended on Saturday. It's amazing how people can sit, oblivious to the annoying ring tone, not knowing it is THEIR phone going off.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:03 PM

Like a computer, a water-wheel mill, a hammer, a gun, and almost everything else, cell phones are tool. I have (and pay for) one; the Library has two. Standing policy is to NEVER drive when talking on the cell phone -- pull over! That goes for me and for staff on Library business.

I don't talk or answer calls in a restaurant, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Cell phones, opinions
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 09:19 PM

Well - tell Jacqui from me to stop being SO DARN PICKY......!