TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now

Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now

Joseph (JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com)
Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:16:08 -0800

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:07:08 -0800, Mark Crispin
<mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> I start mocking their conversation, in a loud enough tone of voice
> that they can hear me. Be it lawyers plotting or trophy wives
> babbling, I have the appropriate offensive comments at hand to offend
> them enough to tone down their conversation, terminate it, or move
> away from my vicinity.

You're really lucky that someone hasn't slugged you yet for your
obnoxious behavior. You seem to think that their being obnoxious is
license for you to be as well, eh?

> A short and/or obviously necessary phone conversation does not elicit
> this response. After all, I use a cell phone myself. I would not
> think of harassing someone arranging to be picked up, or learning
> errands to do on the way home, etc.

Ah, I see you are the arbeiter of what is a "long" or short
conversation and what is necessary and what is not. How fortunate
that you are around to judge for us what is the "right" length and
subject for conversations.

> It's only when they drag it out long beyond what is necessary (and
> worse, use the walkie-talkie mode), to the point that it disturbs
> others; and especially when the topic is inappropriate for a public
> setting.

And we should suppose that you are the judge of what is necessary and
what is fluff, eh?

> It's quite effective.

Until some guy socks you in the mouth for commenting on his private
conversation.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: AES/newspost: "Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now"
Go to Previous message: Marcus Didius Falco: "QCTimes.com -- Spam Suit Nets $1 Billion"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page