Cellphone opponents, take note!

Quoted post said:

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). A pocket bible, other religious book or romance novel would have
served as well, or better, as that damn cell phone in slowing or stopping
bullet. Hell, nothin' magical about his cell phone; a nice slab of brisket
in the pocket could have done as well, then been a filling lunch instead of
landfill fodder.

Quoted post said:

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 said:

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 said:

Dave Smith said:

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 said:

One time on Usenet, [email hidden] (Steve Pope) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Little Malice said:

One time on Usenet, [email hidden] (Steve Pope) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Gregory Morrow said:

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 said:

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

Sure they have.

Steve

notbob said:

Gregory Morrow said:

or took time off to demonstrate about something? Of course, under EU

labor

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

laws strikers can't be immmediately fired like they can here (air

traffic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

Dave Smith said:

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 said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

Dave Smith said:

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 said:

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 <[email hidden]> scripsit in news:dabel-1795FA.17245731052007
@cor8-ppp5025.per.dsl.connect.net.au:

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Quoted message said:

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 said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

Dave Smith said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Steve Pope wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The U.S. is positively wimpy
when it comes to civil disobedience, for the last 30 years
or so.

Quoted message said:

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>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

Dave Smith said:

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 <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Dan Abel said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

Dave Smith <[email hidden]> 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 [censored] on phones
these days.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Steve Pope said:

Quoted message said:

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.