FARGO, North Dakota (AP) -- A man who said he was fed up with his cellular
phone service went to a Fargo mall and started hurling phones across a
store, striking an employee and causing more than $2,000 in damage,
authorities said.
Jason Perala, 22, of Fargo, told The Forum newspaper that he planned only to
yell at employees at Verizon Wireless.
"Then I just lost it," he said. "I just started grabbing computers and
phones and throwing them. I just destroyed the place. ... I kind of regret
that I did it, but I hope my message got across."
-----------------
I hate verizon too, lol.
Rich
On Fri, 14 May 2004 23:59:39 GMT, Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> FARGO, North Dakota (AP) -- A man who said he was fed up with his cellular
> phone service went to a Fargo mall and started hurling phones across a
> store, striking an employee and causing more than $2,000 in damage,
> authorities said.
Ya know, I have a Verizon phone. If I ever see that guy with the
glasses doing his "can you hear me now" thing, I might do something similar.
I have to admit, though, that they do subscribe to the idea of "truth
in advertizing". I find myself saying "Can you hear me now" rather often
when on my Verizon phone. It's usually followed by static, swearing,
and so on, but at least the catch-phrase is accurate.
On Fri, 14 May 2004 23:59:39 GMT, "Rich" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>FARGO, North Dakota (AP) -- A man who said he was fed up with his cellular
>phone service went to a Fargo mall and started hurling phones across a
>store
Were they wooden phones?
Bill.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 14 May 2004 23:59:39 GMT, "Rich" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>FARGO, North Dakota (AP) -- A man who said he was fed up with his cellular
>>phone service went to a Fargo mall and started hurling phones across a
>>store
>
>Were they wooden phones?
>
If they had been, the thread wouldn't be labelled "off topic". :-)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
I throw my cell phone every time i get a call in from the mill............
I too hate cell phones.......
daviswoodshop
"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FARGO, North Dakota (AP) -- A man who said he was fed up with his cellular
> phone service went to a Fargo mall and started hurling phones across a
> store, striking an employee and causing more than $2,000 in damage,
> authorities said.
>
> Jason Perala, 22, of Fargo, told The Forum newspaper that he planned only
to
> yell at employees at Verizon Wireless.
>
> "Then I just lost it," he said. "I just started grabbing computers and
> phones and throwing them. I just destroyed the place. ... I kind of regret
> that I did it, but I hope my message got across."
>
> -----------------
>
>
> I hate verizon too, lol.
>
> Rich
>
>
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> If you're on call all the time, you're not an employee. You're
> a slave.
>
I know what you mean! The last job I had I was on call 24/7/365! The last
year I was there I had a total of 11 days that I was not strpped to a cell
phone. It finaly got old and I moved on. The job I have now I am on call
every third week, much better!! I still sneak off to the lakes in the
summer. Only one time last year did I have to haul anchor and get back to
civilization. If it were not for a cell phone I would not be able to sneak
off!
Greg
sawdust writes:
>I throw my cell phone every time i get a call in from the mill............
>I too hate cell phones......
I think they're mildly amusing, about like wet gumballs, so I don't have one.
Had one for a year and mostly kept it plugged into its charger, where I'd
forget it.
Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> I think they're mildly amusing, about like wet gumballs, so I don't have one.
> Had one for a year and mostly kept it plugged into its charger, where I'd
> forget it.
>
We've got one that gets turned on when one of us goes somewhere
without the other just in case. And we take it on trips, but
only a couple of neighbors and relatives have the number.
Now the idiots that use them while hurtling down the
highways, ...
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Larry Blanchard responds:
>> I think they're mildly amusing, about like wet gumballs, so I don't have
>one.
>> Had one for a year and mostly kept it plugged into its charger, where I'd
>> forget it.
>>
>We've got one that gets turned on when one of us goes somewhere
>without the other just in case. And we take it on trips, but
>only a couple of neighbors and relatives have the number.
>
>Now the idiots that use them while hurtling down the
>highways, ...
Yes, like the guy this morning, blowing down Grand Central, lane closest to the
double strip, cell phone to his ear and staring to his right. It got me to move
ALLLLLLLLL the way to my right!
Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce
On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:08:40 -0700, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that really
> needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
> Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
> touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
> product.
I work in IT, in the mortgage industry. If our systems are down, my
boss loses an immense amount of money per minute of downtime. For
me, part of the job is being not only reachable, but able to act
at very short notice.
Not saying everyone with the cellphone welded to their ear is in
the same boat, but the business world has changed such that at least
some of the folks walking around with the "electronic leash" really
don't have a choice in the matter anymore.
Dave Hinz
In article <[email protected]>, DaveMay2004@duck-
creek.net says...
> I work in IT, in the mortgage industry. If our systems are down, my
> boss loses an immense amount of money per minute of downtime. For
> me, part of the job is being not only reachable, but able to act
> at very short notice.
>
I was a contract programmer, consultant, chief and flunky in
process control systems. You haven't seen panic till a whole
factory quits running - or starts smoking and bubbling :-).
I turned down an employee job at one customer because I would
have had to take turns wearing a pager (pre-cellphone days). I
asked if I got paid my monthly salary, pro-rated of course, for
the times I wore the pager. You can imagine the response.
If you're on call all the time, you're not an employee. You're
a slave.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:47:24 -0700, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> All the power in the world doesn't matter when the circuits and/or
> frequencies are overloaded. Happens every time something big happens. Those
> places that do take this into account do so by shutting down service to all
> except emergency personnel during times of need.
I'm not sure I buy that. How do they know that the cellphone in our
ambulance is allowed, but the one in my pocket isn't? I've bought
a lot of cellphones over the years, and have never been asked to specify
if it was for the fire department or not.
On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:49:25 -0700, Charles Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I'm not sure I buy that. How do they know that the cellphone in our
>> ambulance is allowed, but the one in my pocket isn't? I've bought
>> a lot of cellphones over the years, and have never been asked to specify
>> if it was for the fire department or not.
>
> there are cell phone overrides that will give priority to certain phones
> over others in certain emergency times. i believe they have to be registered
> with the phone companies. you can get these authorizations from local
> emergency officials.
I guess my point here, is that I _am_ a local emergency official, and have
heard nothing about this. Maybe it's regional? Do you have any specifics
on this? (email is fine, we're more off-topic than usual at the
moment).
Dave Hinz
On Tue, 18 May 2004 18:36:16 -0400, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It's called the "Wireless Priority System" (WPS) and was instituted earlier this year. See:
> http://www.us.net/signal/Archive/March03/cellular-march.html
> http://www.imakenews.com/signal/e_article000226826.cfm
Thank you _very_ much. I'm going to get our phones authorized for
it, I appreciate your (and Charlie's) time.
Dave Hinz
CW wrote:
> All the power in the world doesn't matter when the circuits and/or
> frequencies are overloaded. Happens every time something big happens. Those
> places that do take this into account do so by shutting down service to all
> except emergency personnel during times of need.
I guess then that in my 35 years with AT&T there was never a need.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
B a r r y wrote:
> I leave you with a final thought about the reliability of cellular
> networks.
>
> I've spent 20 something years in network operations with some big
> company that provides all kinds of phone, data, and wireless service.
> My company car has cell phones and a cellular data port.
>
> This car is also equipped with a 2-way trunked mobile radio system,
> which we buy space on from a large radio provider. Certain vehicles,
> control centers, and central offices are radio equipped, but your
> typical installer's or technician's vehicle is not. This radio
> provider also does comms for many of CT's PD's, FD's and other public
> safety agencies. This radio is NOT used in day to day operations, but
> it's tested weekly. Keep in mind that 2 way radio service covering a
> large area is a rather large expense to company that is constantly
> trying to cut costs.
>
> Why is the radio there? Because WE know how reliable cell phones are
> during major events. <G>
That's why I have to carry a satellite phone similar to those used for field
work by the military on my company truck.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
George wrote:
> Well, I always considered it a no brainer to carry a cell phone or handset
> when I went on service calls to base stations. No sense relying on what I
> was dispatched to fix working well enough to notify me or call out for
> parts/help.
The "sat' phone is on top of the order wire and "POTS" line at every site, and
the cell phone I always carry.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:49:25 -0700, Charles Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I buy that. How do they know that the cellphone in our
> >> ambulance is allowed, but the one in my pocket isn't? I've bought
> >> a lot of cellphones over the years, and have never been asked to specify
> >> if it was for the fire department or not.
> >
> > there are cell phone overrides that will give priority to certain phones
> > over others in certain emergency times. i believe they have to be registered
> > with the phone companies. you can get these authorizations from local
> > emergency officials.
>
> I guess my point here, is that I _am_ a local emergency official, and have
> heard nothing about this. Maybe it's regional? Do you have any specifics
> on this? (email is fine, we're more off-topic than usual at the
> moment).
>
> Dave Hinz
It's called the "Wireless Priority System" (WPS) and was instituted earlier this year. See:
http://www.us.net/signal/Archive/March03/cellular-march.html
and
http://www.imakenews.com/signal/e_article000226826.cfm
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Yep, but less the cop-size battery, which was necessary for analog models,
its successors (STS 5000 in my case) can still seem heavy. Strange isn't
it? It's an 800MHz radio, in our case, and lasts about as long as a cell
phone with a spare battery....
"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can't. They've been discontinued since 2002.
> "JG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > try walking around with one of these in your belt all day
> > http://www.motorola.com/cgiss/portables/astsaber.shtml#specs
>
>
The difference is the distance to the tower. Digital technology almost
makes a mockery of the inverse square rule.
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The difference in battery life was more due to output power than anything.
5
> watts for the ht. 500 or so milliwatts for the cell phone (radio).
>
Au contraire. At least here the cells are supplied with backup power, and
are an integral part of our disaster preparedness plans. Wires, poles and
trees don't affect 'em.
You want a hoot, try to explain to irate neighbors how they should have a
line-powered phone available, not just cordless....
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This also insures that if there is a serious emergency (tornado, flood,
ect)
> that you can't communicate.
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > a couple of months back I turned off my house phone. now I only have a
> > cel phone. if I don't want to recieve calls, I just turn it off. it
> > takes messages....
>
>
You make a statement easily disproven. The most common and destructive
natural calamities are weather-related, and the cell systems (with their
encoded priorities) outlast the copper wires and wooden poles. This
information is too easily available to be disputed. The cellular operators
normally bury, so survive.
Trunked radio, which uses telephone trunking technology, can also be used as
isolated towers, like the old repeaters. BTDT.
With multiplexing there's little danger of exceeding the capacity of either
system.
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not the case. On 9/11, cell phones were virtually useless in parts of NY.
A
> few years ago, we had an earthquake here in Seattle. Again, cell phones
were
> next to useless though the landlines were fine. The problem is limited
> capacity. Cell systems are designed to handle a certain load. They become
> overloaded easily. Landlines have the same problem to a certain degree but
> not nearly so much so. Unfortunaly, emergency services are, more and more,
> going to trunked radio systems and are finding out, the hard way, that
they
> suffer the same capacity problems as cell phones.
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >besides, any disaster that takes down the
> > cel system is likely also to take out the phone lines.
>
>
You need to review the number of responders and realize that _all_ others
will be excluded at the switch, but aside from that, the boys are also
shielding and directing antennae to gain directionality and frequency reuse
at the same tower, as well as increasing the numbers of minicells.
As to your other problem, you might try reading some of your SPAM.
"B a r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:39:16 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
>
> >With multiplexing there's little danger of exceeding the capacity of
either
> >system.
> >
>
> George,
>
> Cellular networks often get temporarily overloaded when
> there's a sudden traffic jam. <G>
>
> Multiplexing provides more capacity over less physical copper or
> fiber. That's it. It doesn't provide extra emergency capacity or
> growth on demand, and it doesn't increase penis size, either.
>
> Barry
"George" <george@least> writes:
>Au contraire. At least here the cells are supplied with backup power, and
>are an integral part of our disaster preparedness plans. Wires, poles and
>trees don't affect 'em.
Wires are still needed to get the signal to all those towers. The lines
going to the tower can still get knocked out.
Brian Elfert
Underground is pretty wind-resistant.
As I drove the country for 5,000 miles in the last two weeks, I can't recall
seeing above-ground service too often in those three towers (A,B, PCS)
spaced every twenty miles along the trunklines. Saw a number of microwave
links, though.
Not to worry, your state/county/municipal Emergency Preparedness people have
already sat down with the carriers and reviewed or established new
contingency plans. With 9-11, there's even money available to upgrade the
necessary units to provide service in case of emergency.
"Brian Elfert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George" <george@least> writes:
>
> >Au contraire. At least here the cells are supplied with backup power,
and
> >are an integral part of our disaster preparedness plans. Wires, poles
and
> >trees don't affect 'em.
>
> Wires are still needed to get the signal to all those towers. The lines
> going to the tower can still get knocked out.
>
> Brian Elfert
Well, I always considered it a no brainer to carry a cell phone or handset
when I went on service calls to base stations. No sense relying on what I
was dispatched to fix working well enough to notify me or call out for
parts/help.
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> B a r r y wrote:
>
> > I leave you with a final thought about the reliability of cellular
> > networks.
> >
> > I've spent 20 something years in network operations with some big
> > company that provides all kinds of phone, data, and wireless service.
> > My company car has cell phones and a cellular data port.
> >
> > This car is also equipped with a 2-way trunked mobile radio system,
> > which we buy space on from a large radio provider. Certain vehicles,
> > control centers, and central offices are radio equipped, but your
> > typical installer's or technician's vehicle is not. This radio
> > provider also does comms for many of CT's PD's, FD's and other public
> > safety agencies. This radio is NOT used in day to day operations, but
> > it's tested weekly. Keep in mind that 2 way radio service covering a
> > large area is a rather large expense to company that is constantly
> > trying to cut costs.
> >
> > Why is the radio there? Because WE know how reliable cell phones are
> > during major events. <G>
>
> That's why I have to carry a satellite phone similar to those used for
field
> work by the military on my company truck.
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
>
>
On Sat, 15 May 2004 16:50:53 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>This also insures that if there is a serious emergency (tornado, flood, ect)
>that you can't communicate.
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> a couple of months back I turned off my house phone. now I only have a
>> cel phone. if I don't want to recieve calls, I just turn it off. it
>> takes messages....
>
well, around here tornados haven't been a significan't problem, and
I'm above the flood plain. besides, any disaster that takes down the
cel system is likely also to take out the phone lines.
You can have all the paper stats you want. It doesn't change a thing. I've
watched it happen.
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You make a statement easily disproven. The most common and destructive
> natural calamities are weather-related, and the cell systems (with their
> encoded priorities) outlast the copper wires and wooden poles. This
> information is too easily available to be disputed. The cellular
operators
> normally bury, so survive.
>
> Trunked radio, which uses telephone trunking technology, can also be used
as
> isolated towers, like the old repeaters. BTDT.
>
> With multiplexing there's little danger of exceeding the capacity of
either
> system.
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Not the case. On 9/11, cell phones were virtually useless in parts of
NY.
> A
> > few years ago, we had an earthquake here in Seattle. Again, cell phones
> were
> > next to useless though the landlines were fine. The problem is limited
> > capacity. Cell systems are designed to handle a certain load. They
become
> > overloaded easily. Landlines have the same problem to a certain degree
but
> > not nearly so much so. Unfortunaly, emergency services are, more and
more,
> > going to trunked radio systems and are finding out, the hard way, that
> they
> > suffer the same capacity problems as cell phones.
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >besides, any disaster that takes down the
> > > cel system is likely also to take out the phone lines.
> >
> >
>
>
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:08:40 -0700, CW <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that
>> really needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a
>> viable business. Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now,
>> everyone has to "keep in touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell
>> phone industry to sell their product.
>
> I work in IT, in the mortgage industry. If our systems are down, my
> boss loses an immense amount of money per minute of downtime. For
> me, part of the job is being not only reachable, but able to act
> at very short notice.
>
> Not saying everyone with the cellphone welded to their ear is in
> the same boat, but the business world has changed such that at least
> some of the folks walking around with the "electronic leash" really
> don't have a choice in the matter anymore.
>
> Dave Hinz
Funny, isn't it that the people who comment on how they appreciate the
ability to reach the important people they reach out to - that those people
answer their phones, are the very people who have so much to say about the
technologies which enable this contact.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow responds:
>Funny, isn't it that the people who comment on how they appreciate the
>ability to reach the important people they reach out to - that those people
>answer their phones, are the very people who have so much to say about the
>technologies which enable this contact.
Funny isn't it that every person I was writing of has been answering phones
that way since the '50s, to my knowledge. Damned few of them had cellular
technology back then. The ONLY technology needed for a person to answer his own
phone is a landline and an ego that is under control.
Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce
Amen. The knock at the door isn't necessarily the bogeyman - could be
opportunity.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > Mike Marlow responds:
> >
> >> Funny, isn't it that the people who comment on how they appreciate
> >> the ability to reach the important people they reach out to - that
> >> those people answer their phones, are the very people who have so
> >> much to say about the technologies which enable this contact.
> >
> > Funny isn't it that every person I was writing of has been answering
> > phones that way since the '50s, to my knowledge. Damned few of them
> > had cellular technology back then. The ONLY technology needed for a
> > person to answer his own phone is a landline and an ego that is under
> > control.
> >
>
> And way back in the beginning they were the early adopters who jumped on
the
> technologies of the times to support their business and their private
lives.
> You'd be surprised how many times a call to a local business number
actually
> goes through to a cell phone today or to a home phone or to some other
> location besides the office location. All I'm saying is that it's funny
how
> you and others seem to enjoy the ability to reach someone when you call
them
> and actually applaud that they take your calls, yet as this newer
technology
> is taking off, you have a lot of negative stuff to say about it, while the
> very technology you seem to think is acceptable was once equally new,
> considered equally invasive, equally vain, etc. Egos that are under
control
> don't try to dictate to the world around them just what is proper and
> acceptable based on their own fears, preferences and taste.
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
Charlie Self wrote:
> Mike Marlow responds:
>
>> Funny, isn't it that the people who comment on how they appreciate
>> the ability to reach the important people they reach out to - that
>> those people answer their phones, are the very people who have so
>> much to say about the technologies which enable this contact.
>
> Funny isn't it that every person I was writing of has been answering
> phones that way since the '50s, to my knowledge. Damned few of them
> had cellular technology back then. The ONLY technology needed for a
> person to answer his own phone is a landline and an ego that is under
> control.
>
And way back in the beginning they were the early adopters who jumped on the
technologies of the times to support their business and their private lives.
You'd be surprised how many times a call to a local business number actually
goes through to a cell phone today or to a home phone or to some other
location besides the office location. All I'm saying is that it's funny how
you and others seem to enjoy the ability to reach someone when you call them
and actually applaud that they take your calls, yet as this newer technology
is taking off, you have a lot of negative stuff to say about it, while the
very technology you seem to think is acceptable was once equally new,
considered equally invasive, equally vain, etc. Egos that are under control
don't try to dictate to the world around them just what is proper and
acceptable based on their own fears, preferences and taste.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow goes on...and on:
>And way back in the beginning they were the early adopters who jumped on the
>technologies of the times to support their business and their private lives.
Actually, a couple of these people still don't use cell phone technology, home
or business, which, anyway, is irrelevant to the point I was making.
>You'd be surprised how many times a call to a local business number actually
>goes through to a cell phone today or to a home phone or to some other
>location besides the office location. All I'm saying is that it's funny how
>you and others seem to enjoy the ability to reach someone when you call them
>and actually applaud that they take your calls, yet as this newer technology
>is taking off, you have a lot of negative stuff to say about it, while the
>very technology you seem to think is acceptable was once equally new,
>considered equally invasive, equally vain, etc. Egos that are under control
>don't try to dictate to the world around them just what is proper and
>acceptable based on their own fears, preferences and taste.
Horseshit, to be polite. I flatly stated that for ME, cell phones are a waste
of money, and further stated that cell phone technology had nothing to do with
people in top business positions answering their own phones. You've taken that
and chosen to run it into areas that are not part of my original statement, but
something you read into what I actually wrote.
What else I said, the need to be "reach out and touch someone" each moment is
equal in illness, or stupidity (you choose), to having to have constant noise
(call it music if you like) in the background and foreground 24 hours a day.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Horseshit, to be polite. I flatly stated that for ME, cell phones are
> a waste of money, and further stated that cell phone technology had
> nothing to do with people in top business positions answering their
> own phones. You've taken that and chosen to run it into areas that
> are not part of my original statement, but something you read into
> what I actually wrote.
Actually no - I made a comment about the vocal opinions of some who can't
resist throwing their opinions out on others around them. Fine that some
may not care to own or use a cell phone - funny that they denigrate a
technology or the users of technologies simply because of what they chose
for themselves. You are the one who read into it and ran off.
And...horseshit is only used politely when talking about garden fertilizers.
>
> What else I said, the need to be "reach out and touch someone" each
> moment is equal in illness, or stupidity (you choose), to having to
> have constant noise (call it music if you like) in the background and
> foreground 24 hours a day.
>
See above. One should not express their opinions in a public forum if they
are not comfortable with those opinions being challenged. Doesn't mean I
consider you to be an a**hole, just means I disagree with you.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow goes on:
I flatly stated that for ME, cell phones are
>> a waste of money, and further stated that cell phone technology had
>> nothing to do with people in top business positions answering their
>> own phones. You've taken that and chosen to run it into areas that
>> are not part of my original statement, but something you read into
>> what I actually wrote.
>
>Actually no - I made a comment about the vocal opinions of some who can't
>resist throwing their opinions out on others around them. Fine that some
>may not care to own or use a cell phone - funny that they denigrate a
>technology or the users of technologies simply because of what they chose
>for themselves. You are the one who read into it and ran off.
>And...horseshit is only used politely when talking about garden fertilizers.
>
The opinions you expressed were additions to mine, not mine. You took the ball
and ran up a nonexistent field. I did not knock the technology. I did knock
some of the dipshits who use it, and use it improperly.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary
Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
> The opinions you expressed were additions to mine, not mine. You took
> the ball and ran up a nonexistent field.
Whatever.
> I did not knock the
> technology. I did knock some of the dipshits who use it, and use it
> improperly.
>
I guess they didn't read your book on the proper use of the technology.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
This also insures that if there is a serious emergency (tornado, flood, ect)
that you can't communicate.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> a couple of months back I turned off my house phone. now I only have a
> cel phone. if I don't want to recieve calls, I just turn it off. it
> takes messages....
There are obviously peope that need them. The there are the other 90% of
users.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:08:40 -0700, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that
really
> > needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
> > Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
> > touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
> > product.
>
> I work in IT, in the mortgage industry. If our systems are down, my
> boss loses an immense amount of money per minute of downtime. For
> me, part of the job is being not only reachable, but able to act
> at very short notice.
>
> Not saying everyone with the cellphone welded to their ear is in
> the same boat, but the business world has changed such that at least
> some of the folks walking around with the "electronic leash" really
> don't have a choice in the matter anymore.
>
> Dave Hinz
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> sawdust writes:
> >I throw my cell phone every time i get a call in from the
mill............
> >I too hate cell phones......
>
> I think they're mildly amusing, about like wet gumballs, so I don't have
one.
> Had one for a year and mostly kept it plugged into its charger, where I'd
> forget it.
>
a cell phone is an electronic leash.
randy
Randy responds:
>a cell phone is an electronic leash.
Yup. So is a pager. I used to have a friend who was delighted when his boss
gave him a pager. It proved his importance. Every time that damned thing
buzzed, he leapt into action.
Bleah!
Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce
Charlie Self wrote:
> Randy responds:
>
> >a cell phone is an electronic leash.
>
> Yup. So is a pager. I used to have a friend who was delighted when his boss
> gave him a pager.
<snip>
I was too, but it was more because it's an extra $8,000 per year for carrying it,
plus "time and a half" if it goes off.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Jack Novak responds:
>> Yup. So is a pager. I used to have a friend who was delighted when his boss
>> gave him a pager.
>
><snip>
>
>I was too, but it was more because it's an extra $8,000 per year for carrying
>it,
>plus "time and a half" if it goes off.
Louis got squat unless it went off, at which time he got straight time. Life in
a non-union state for a boss who could afford the pager, but not much else.
Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce
Ever notice how some folks take it as a sign of status to hide behind staff
or electronic devices with built-in deniability?
I prefer to do business with people who answer their own phone. They may
not be as important as the dodgers, but they sure make me feel as if I am.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Randy responds:
>
> >a cell phone is an electronic leash.
>
> Yup. So is a pager. I used to have a friend who was delighted when his
boss
> gave him a pager. It proved his importance. Every time that damned thing
> buzzed, he leapt into action.
>
George notes:
>Ever notice how some folks take it as a sign of status to hide behind staff
>or electronic devices with built-in deniability?
>
>I prefer to do business with people who answer their own phone. They may
>not be as important as the dodgers, but they sure make me feel as if I am.
Oddly enough, the most important people I know, in terms of business at least,
are quickly available by phone to almost any caller. The prissiest twits who
want to play "Mr. [or Ms} Important" and cycle you through a lot of crap tend
not to be a lot of help anyway.
Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce
Yep, that's what I've noticed.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George notes:
>
> >Ever notice how some folks take it as a sign of status to hide behind
staff
> >or electronic devices with built-in deniability?
> >
> >I prefer to do business with people who answer their own phone. They may
> >not be as important as the dodgers, but they sure make me feel as if I
am.
>
> Oddly enough, the most important people I know, in terms of business at
least,
> are quickly available by phone to almost any caller. The prissiest twits
who
> want to play "Mr. [or Ms} Important" and cycle you through a lot of crap
tend
> not to be a lot of help anyway.
On Sat, 15 May 2004 10:42:45 -0400, Nova wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Randy responds:
>>
>> >a cell phone is an electronic leash.
>>
>> Yup. So is a pager. I used to have a friend who was delighted when his
>> boss gave him a pager.
>
> <snip>
>
> I was too, but it was more because it's an extra $8,000 per year for
> carrying it, plus "time and a half" if it goes off.
Did you request 3 or 4 more ;-)
-Doug
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
The difference in battery life was more due to output power than anything. 5
watts for the ht. 500 or so milliwatts for the cell phone (radio).
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yep, but less the cop-size battery, which was necessary for analog models,
> its successors (STS 5000 in my case) can still seem heavy. Strange isn't
> it? It's an 800MHz radio, in our case, and lasts about as long as a cell
> phone with a spare battery....
>
> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Can't. They've been discontinued since 2002.
>
> > "JG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > try walking around with one of these in your belt all day
> > > http://www.motorola.com/cgiss/portables/astsaber.shtml#specs
> >
> >
>
>
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:45:34 -0700, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >If you're on call all the time, you're not an employee. You're
> >a slave.
My son owns a business that supplies medical devices and oxygen to people
at home. There must be someone on call all the time. I used to take
weekends for him at times. I got paid, calls or not.
Pager and portable phone gave me freedom, not slavery. Some weekends there
are no calls, but I could go as I pleased within the confines of a third of
the state.. It also allows for contact so I did not return home only to find
a second call required I be near the fist one, 30 miles away.
Do I still need a cell phone? No, but is sure is nice to have. Like the time
my wife ended up in a hospital for six days when we were returning from
vacation. It is a security thing also. I don't sit and chat on it at a
ballgame or in a restaurant, etc. It is a tool to be used properly.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Can't. They've been discontinued since 2002.
Kevin
--
=====
Where are those Iraqi WMDs, NOW?
"JG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> try walking around with one of these in your belt all day
> http://www.motorola.com/cgiss/portables/astsaber.shtml#specs
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:45:34 -0700, Larry Blanchard
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >If you're on call all the time, you're not an employee. You're
> > >a slave.
>
> My son owns a business that supplies medical devices and oxygen to people
> at home. There must be someone on call all the time. I used to take
> weekends for him at times. I got paid, calls or not.
>
> Pager and portable phone gave me freedom, not slavery. Some weekends
there
> are no calls, but I could go as I pleased...
> Do I still need a cell phone? No, but is sure is nice to have. Like the
time
> my wife ended up in a hospital for six days when we were returning from
> vacation. It is a security thing also. I don't sit and chat on it at a
> ballgame or in a restaurant, etc. It is a tool to be used properly.
> Ed
I resisted getting a cell phone, finally gave in when my father was
recovering from a serious illness, because it gave me greater mobility and
peace of mind leaving at home alone when I had to. I don't use it a great
deal, don't have a lot of casual chats with friends on it, but it is for me,
as you say, a useful tool.
The day after I got my first cell phone, I was in a supermarket parking lot
when a woman there staggered and slumped over a car, having a dizzy spell
after having forgotten to take some medication. I used the phone to call
her husband (she didn't want 911), and he, a couple of blocks away, brought
her the medicine while I stayed with her. It was a relief not to have to
leave the woman to go find a phone to call for help.
The cell phone was a BIG help when I was hit by a drunk driver last summer.
The driver tried to get away, and I was able to keep her in sight while I
contacted the police. That incident caused me, when I switched service a few
months later and got a new phone as part of the bargain, to get a feature I
considered even sillier: a phone with a built-in camera.
After the accident, when the drunk driver realized she couldn't get away,
her very drunk/stoned passenger got out of the car, staggered back to me and
tried to assault me (he was too stoned to accomplish much or require much
defense beside leaving the scene - after telling the 911 dispatcher on my
cell phone where I was going, of course). But my passenger was a friend on
vacation, and he happened to have his digital camera at hand, and he took a
picture of the idiot trying to hit me! The cops loved this 'Kodak moment'
when they arrived. I realized later that some on-scene photos of damage to
both vehicles might have been helpful; I've read 'helpful hints' columns
suggesting people keep a disposable camera in the car to document accidents.
So far (about six months) the only really practical use I've found for the
cell phone camera was when a client's vacation home was burgled and we
needed/wanted photos for the insurance company of the damage before I
secured things and cleaned up the damage; saved me a trip home for a camera.
--
Robert
Communicate with who? Get in the damn bathtub, and cower before Mother
Nature's wrath, like you're supposed to!
Kevin
--
=====
Where are those Iraqi WMDs, NOW?
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This also insures that if there is a serious emergency (tornado, flood,
ect)
> that you can't communicate.
It's all analog when it's in the air.
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The difference is the distance to the tower. Digital technology almost
> makes a mockery of the inverse square rule.
>
>
>
That's what it comes down to, ain't it?
Kevin
--
=====
Where are those Iraqi WMDs, NOW?
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It is a tool to be used properly.
In article <[email protected]>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that really
>needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
>Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
>touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
>product.
A long time ago I had to go 500+ miles to respond to a family
emergency. I'm on the road at 10pm and need to call and say I'll be
there at 2am - but how can I call? I found a rest stop which was just
closing and they let me in under the gate to place an "emergency call".
I got back from that trip and got my first cell phone (a "bag phone"
for the car.)
Then I realized that if my wife and daughter took it with them on
trips that they would be safer.
So I can't imagine doing without one (or more.)
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:47:24 -0700, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> > All the power in the world doesn't matter when the circuits and/or
> > frequencies are overloaded. Happens every time something big happens.
Those
> > places that do take this into account do so by shutting down service to
all
> > except emergency personnel during times of need.
>
> I'm not sure I buy that. How do they know that the cellphone in our
> ambulance is allowed, but the one in my pocket isn't? I've bought
> a lot of cellphones over the years, and have never been asked to specify
> if it was for the fire department or not.
there are cell phone overrides that will give priority to certain phones
over others in certain emergency times. i believe they have to be registered
with the phone companies. you can get these authorizations from local
emergency officials.
they're used to get calls routed when the general public has overwhelmed the
local cell towers (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc).
On Mon, 17 May 2004 07:02:59 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>You need to review the number of responders and realize that _all_ others
>will be excluded at the switch, but aside from that, the boys are also
>shielding and directing antennae to gain directionality and frequency reuse
>at the same tower, as well as increasing the numbers of minicells.
I leave you with a final thought about the reliability of cellular
networks.
I've spent 20 something years in network operations with some big
company that provides all kinds of phone, data, and wireless service.
My company car has cell phones and a cellular data port.
This car is also equipped with a 2-way trunked mobile radio system,
which we buy space on from a large radio provider. Certain vehicles,
control centers, and central offices are radio equipped, but your
typical installer's or technician's vehicle is not. This radio
provider also does comms for many of CT's PD's, FD's and other public
safety agencies. This radio is NOT used in day to day operations, but
it's tested weekly. Keep in mind that 2 way radio service covering a
large area is a rather large expense to company that is constantly
trying to cut costs.
Why is the radio there? Because WE know how reliable cell phones are
during major events. <G>
Barry
On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:14:28 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>Au contraire. At least here the cells are supplied with backup power, and
>are an integral part of our disaster preparedness plans. Wires, poles and
>trees don't affect 'em.
Actually, wires and poles DO affect cells, and most cellular companies
are not regulated as phone companies, as far as emergency planning
goes.
Very few cell sites have truly diverse feeds, as we do with stuff like
911 feeds, back to the phone network. The ones that do are usually
huge, multi-company urban sites fed by major fibers. Losing a pole,
or a dug up cable or fiber usually means no site with typical cells.
With luck, you'll be in an area that sees multiple signals, so you can
still make and receive calls.
A typical non-urban cell site is battery equipped, but does not
include a generator. The batteries are there to provide enough power
to allow a trailer genset to be moved to the site. The same sites
that have diverse fiber feeds also usually have decent size
generators.
Many companies have been known to bounce trailer mounted gensets
around during large power outages, leaving them at each site long
enough to charge the batteries and then moving them elesewhere.
Barry
Not the case. On 9/11, cell phones were virtually useless in parts of NY. A
few years ago, we had an earthquake here in Seattle. Again, cell phones were
next to useless though the landlines were fine. The problem is limited
capacity. Cell systems are designed to handle a certain load. They become
overloaded easily. Landlines have the same problem to a certain degree but
not nearly so much so. Unfortunaly, emergency services are, more and more,
going to trunked radio systems and are finding out, the hard way, that they
suffer the same capacity problems as cell phones.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>besides, any disaster that takes down the
> cel system is likely also to take out the phone lines.
On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:08:40 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that really
>needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
>Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
>touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
>product.
>
a couple of months back I turned off my house phone. now I only have a
cel phone. if I don't want to recieve calls, I just turn it off. it
takes messages....
On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:03:19 -0400, Nova <[email protected]>
wrote:
>hat do take this into account do so by shutting down service to all
>> except emergency personnel during times of need.
>
>I guess then that in my 35 years with AT&T there was never a need.
Me too.
The only time I ever saw line load control invoked was accidentally.
<G>
Barry
On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:39:16 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>With multiplexing there's little danger of exceeding the capacity of either
>system.
>
George,
Cellular networks often get temporarily overloaded when
there's a sudden traffic jam. <G>
Multiplexing provides more capacity over less physical copper or
fiber. That's it. It doesn't provide extra emergency capacity or
growth on demand, and it doesn't increase penis size, either.
Barry
While this is quite correct, of what I have seen, most place don't use the
system. When cells get overloaded, nobody gets through.
"Charles Spitzer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> there are cell phone overrides that will give priority to certain phones
> over others in certain emergency times. i believe they have to be
registered
> with the phone companies. you can get these authorizations from local
> emergency officials.
>
> they're used to get calls routed when the general public has overwhelmed
the
> local cell towers (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc).
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that really
> needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
> Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
> touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
> product.
Hmm, funny really. For me, a cell phone really helps me keep my privacy
in many ways. I have an unlisted cell phone number with caller-ID
blocking. I use caller ID on my phone (yes, I am a hypocrite). Very,
very few people have my cell phone number. Once in a while I might give
it to a delivery service, but if they ever called me twice they will get
a whole load of crap. My home number has no voice mail and often goes
unanswered.
This way I only get calls from people I want them from and only answer
them at my convenience. If I don't want to be interrupted I put it on
silent or turn it off. For me, this allows me to be out a great deal
(particularly long outdoor photo sessions) and still remain in contact
with the people I want to, yet ignore the rest of the world when I wish.
This has made my life richer without becoming a hermit.
Don't be so quick to judge how we use our phones.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I really get a kick out of the caller ID crap. When
> we moved to WV, the oldest kid had caller ID and her kids have strict
> instructions not to pick up if the number is unrecognized. We had to
resort to
> email to get through on the damned phone line. The same thing happened
when the
> daughter landed in NY from a trip to Italy, and was going to be way late
> getting to Greensboro to be picked up. No one at her house would answer
the
> phone because it came from an airport pay booth.
>
>
I don't have caller ID. I just don't answer the phone if I don't want to,
and hang up if it is someone I don't wan to talk to. Simple and free! I have
a answering machine, if I don't answer, you better leave a messege!
Greg
Paul Kierstead responds:
>> Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that really
>> needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
>> Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
>> touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
>> product.
>
>Hmm, funny really. For me, a cell phone really helps me keep my privacy
>in many ways. I have an unlisted cell phone number with caller-ID
>blocking. I use caller ID on my phone (yes, I am a hypocrite). Very,
>very few people have my cell phone number. Once in a while I might give
>it to a delivery service, but if they ever called me twice they will get
>a whole load of crap. My home number has no voice mail and often goes
>unanswered.
>
>This way I only get calls from people I want them from and only answer
>them at my convenience. If I don't want to be interrupted I put it on
>silent or turn it off. For me, this allows me to be out a great deal
>(particularly long outdoor photo sessions) and still remain in contact
>with the people I want to, yet ignore the rest of the world when I wish.
>
>This has made my life richer without becoming a hermit.
>
>Don't be so quick to judge how we use our phones.
>
>
For you, it sounds viable. I really get a kick out of the caller ID crap. When
we moved to WV, the oldest kid had caller ID and her kids have strict
instructions not to pick up if the number is unrecognized. We had to resort to
email to get through on the damned phone line. The same thing happened when the
daughter landed in NY from a trip to Italy, and was going to be way late
getting to Greensboro to be picked up. No one at her house would answer the
phone because it came from an airport pay booth.
But I also don't recall noting that everyone should do as I do. I noticed long
ago whether I was knocking out pages on the machine or shooting photos, there
was NEVER a call that came in that couldn't wait a few hours for return. That
goes back to the mid-or late '60s, so I'm perfectly willing to continue to
force people to wait a couple hours to hear from me. Horrible, I know, but
that's life.
Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>I noticed long
>ago whether I was knocking out pages on the machine or shooting photos, there
>was NEVER a call that came in that couldn't wait a few hours for return. That
>goes back to the mid-or late '60s, so I'm perfectly willing to continue to
>force people to wait a couple hours to hear from me. Horrible, I know, but
>that's life.
I try to keep in mind the philosophy of a friend of mine, when it comes to
rushing to answer the phone: "If it's important, they'll call back. If it
isn't important, who cares???"
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
All the power in the world doesn't matter when the circuits and/or
frequencies are overloaded. Happens every time something big happens. Those
places that do take this into account do so by shutting down service to all
except emergency personnel during times of need.
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Au contraire. At least here the cells are supplied with backup power, and
> are an integral part of our disaster preparedness plans. Wires, poles and
> trees don't affect 'em.
>
> You want a hoot, try to explain to irate neighbors how they should have a
> line-powered phone available, not just cordless....
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This also insures that if there is a serious emergency (tornado, flood,
> ect)
> > that you can't communicate.
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > a couple of months back I turned off my house phone. now I only have a
> > > cel phone. if I don't want to recieve calls, I just turn it off. it
> > > takes messages....
> >
> >
>
>
On Sat, 15 May 2004 03:51:25 -0600, "xrongor" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>a cell phone is an electronic leash.
Or a freedom machine for some folks.
It beats sitting by a phone when you're on call.
Barry
On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:45:34 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>If you're on call all the time, you're not an employee. You're
>a slave.
Maybe, maybe not.
Some of us who have on call provisions rotate the duty. I get it a
week at a time, once a month, or so. I am paid if called or not. The
better I manage my day to day operation, the less calls I get. I
encourage my direct reports to make decisions, take responsibility and
do their own job. Usually, I don't get a single call. When I do,
someone needs an escalated decision. All of the information I need to
provide a decision, or an alternate contact, is in a PDA.
Without these devices, I'd be stuck at home by a phone. With the
wireless devices, I'm where I want, when I want. This makes the
device a freedom device, with extra pay as gravy. If I don't want the
pay, I have peers who gladly volunteer to take my duty time.
Technology can either work for you or against you, it's a personal
decision.
Barry
Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that really
needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
product.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> sawdust writes:
> >I throw my cell phone every time i get a call in from the
mill............
> >I too hate cell phones......
>
> I think they're mildly amusing, about like wet gumballs, so I don't have
one.
> Had one for a year and mostly kept it plugged into its charger, where I'd
> forget it.
>
>
> Charlie Self
> "In our civilization, and under our republican form of government,
intelligence
> is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
> office." Ambrose Bierce
>
>Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that really
>needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
>Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
>touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
>product.
>
Ya know, if I remember the stories correctly, that is exactly what old folks
said about "regular" phones when they were just coming into everyday use in
most homes. "Hell, if someone wants to talk to me they can ride their horse out
to the farm and talk to me. Don't need no damn contraption lettin' people
bother me in my own home. Besides, that 'lectricity stuff will probably fry
your brain." :)
CW responds:
>Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that really
>needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
>Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
>touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
>product.
Yes. Keep in touch for what? How much is going to change here in the 3 days
I'll be out next week that will be of major importance to me? The need for
constantly being patted on the back, or constantly patting someone on the back,
is something of an illness, IMHO, related strongly to the sickness of being
unable to sit still and think without some kind of background noise filling the
air.
Charlie Self
"In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of
office." Ambrose Bierce
On 15 May 2004 20:56:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
brought forth from the murky depths:
>CW responds:
>
>>Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that really
>>needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
>>Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
>>touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
>>product.
>
>Yes. Keep in touch for what? How much is going to change here in the 3 days
>I'll be out next week that will be of major importance to me? The need for
>constantly being patted on the back, or constantly patting someone on the back,
>is something of an illness, IMHO, related strongly to the sickness of being
>unable to sit still and think without some kind of background noise filling the
>air.
A Freakin' Men, sir. I'm with the hurler.
I cannot understand the obsession people have with phones, especially
since the cell phone technology is still in the dark ages. I'd like to
hear on one single person who has -never- had their phone go out of
range OR their battery die OR had a bad connection OR they couldn't
hear/understand what the guy on the other end was saying. I'd be
willing to bet that everyone who has used a cell phone more than twice
has experienced at least one of those happenings at least once.
My Hawaii client called me today using her cell phone and we spent
over an hour online. I had to ask her to repeat things a dozen times
and she asked me 4 or 5 times.
Feh! Pay all that money so people have more places from whence to
harrass you at all hours? Right. Pass!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction. --Steven Wright
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
When I was in Texas, I spent over 4,000 minutes per month on my Sprint
phone, talkin' to my honey in PA. It dropped the signal, now and then, and
I had to plug into the charger, most nights, but it beat the heck outta
paying long distance charges, and I was able to keep a relationship alive
from 1,200 miles away for nine months.
It's worth every penny, and suffering through every frustrating
technological anomaly, if you ask me.
Kevin
--
=====
Where are those Iraqi WMDs, NOW?
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 15 May 2004 20:56:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> brought forth from the murky depths:
>
> >CW responds:
> >
> >>Agreed Charlie, I don't have one either. If only those people that
really
> >>needed cell phones had them, it would probably not be a viable business.
> >>Used to be, people valued their privacy. Now, everyone has to "keep in
> >>touch", an idea that was pushed by the cell phone industry to sell their
> >>product.
> >
> >Yes. Keep in touch for what? How much is going to change here in the 3
days
> >I'll be out next week that will be of major importance to me? The need
for
> >constantly being patted on the back, or constantly patting someone on the
back,
> >is something of an illness, IMHO, related strongly to the sickness of
being
> >unable to sit still and think without some kind of background noise
filling the
> >air.
>
> A Freakin' Men, sir. I'm with the hurler.
>
> I cannot understand the obsession people have with phones, especially
> since the cell phone technology is still in the dark ages. I'd like to
> hear on one single person who has -never- had their phone go out of
> range OR their battery die OR had a bad connection OR they couldn't
> hear/understand what the guy on the other end was saying. I'd be
> willing to bet that everyone who has used a cell phone more than twice
> has experienced at least one of those happenings at least once.
>
> My Hawaii client called me today using her cell phone and we spent
> over an hour online. I had to ask her to repeat things a dozen times
> and she asked me 4 or 5 times.
>
> Feh! Pay all that money so people have more places from whence to
> harrass you at all hours? Right. Pass!
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction. --Steven Wright
> ----------------------------
> http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
>