[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Mobile Gadet Users: Ruder than Ever, Study Shows here

[jpratt3rd]

Kids and yuppies, mostly. Teens are the worst 'in your face' about it.

[JulieAustinWillis]

Our perception of what is rude is just going to have to change...

[SpencerWilcox]

ok so what if im peein and some dude is tlkin on his cell phone id on't really care its his phone his life i mean its not like there interviewing us

[waldojim]

I like to mess with those people using the phone in public restrooms... I flush the toilets three or four times. Usually the person on the other end will get upset and hang up.

[CharlieMitchell]

JulieAustinWillis, on 27 February 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

Our perception of what is rude is just going to have to change...

I don't agree. It's been my experience that it's always the rudest person in the room who thinks that everybody else is uptight and needs to chill.

[citizenkane]

waldojim, on 27 February 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

I like to mess with those people using the phone in public restrooms... I flush the toilets three or four times. Usually the person on the other end will get upset and hang up.

Oh, I like that. Time for the Flushing for Phone Etiquette Revolution to begin!

[deepsand]

JulieAustinWillis, on 27 February 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

Our perception of what is rude is just going to have to change...

Why?

The fact that rudeness is commonplace does not serve to make it civil behavior.

[Kahuna]

There is a future for cellphone jammers.

[deepsand]

Kahuna, on 28 February 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

There is a future for cellphone jammers.

Potentially one behind bars, as active jamming is generally illegal.

[waldojim]

deepsand, on 28 February 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

Kahuna, on 28 February 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

There is a future for cellphone jammers.

Potentially one behind bars, as active jamming is generally illegal.

Which is too bad, as many people would learn quickly where cell phone use is and is not acceptable.

[deepsand]

waldojim, on 28 February 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

deepsand, on 28 February 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

Kahuna, on 28 February 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

There is a future for cellphone jammers.

Potentially one behind bars, as active jamming is generally illegal.

Which is too bad, as many people would learn quickly where cell phone use is and is not acceptable.

Inconsiderate cell users; or, inconsiderate cell jammers.

Either way, civility is the victim.

[butlerwm]

jpratt3rd, on 27 February 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Kids and yuppies, mostly. Teens are the worst 'in your face' about it.

I have to disagree. In our office, the majority is over forty and of upper lower-class and lower middle-class, in a rural community--not a single yuppie and none under thirty. Use of personal devices has become so disruptive we are on the verge of restricting use to break times. When a customer service representative interrupts a business phone call to answer their cell phone, something is seriously wrong. Except when I'm home, my cell stays on vibrate and I've instructed friends and family not to call me during business ours unless there is an urgent need.

It shouldn't be necessary to instruct people in a meeting to turn off their ringers. It should be a matter of course... and engaging in a phone conversation during a meeting is akin to having a loud, private conversation with the person next to you while business is being conducted. Lastly, I don't really believe the devices make people more rude... they just make already rude people more noticeable.

[waldojim]

deepsand, on 28 February 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

Inconsiderate cell users; or, inconsiderate cell jammers.

Either way, civility is the victim.

I am not really thinking jammers in the hands of people, just the right businesses. Such as theater, or restaurants!

[deepsand]

butlerwm, on 28 February 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

jpratt3rd, on 27 February 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Kids and yuppies, mostly. Teens are the worst 'in your face' about it.

... Lastly, I don't really believe the devices make people more rude... they just make already rude people more noticeable.

Might not that increased visibility induce some of those whose notions re. civil behavior are still plastic to deem such behavior to be acceptable?

[deepsand]

waldojim, on 01 March 2011 - 12:11 AM, said:

deepsand, on 28 February 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

Inconsiderate cell users; or, inconsiderate cell jammers.

Either way, civility is the victim.

I am not really thinking jammers in the hands of people, just the right businesses. Such as theater, or restaurants!

Passive blocking is there an option.

Such establishments might also establish, conspicuously display, and consistently enforce a policy banning the use of cell phones. If they can do so for smoking, why not here as well?

[waldojim]

deepsand, on 01 March 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

Passive blocking is there an option.

Such establishments might also establish, conspicuously display, and consistently enforce a policy banning the use of cell phones. If they can do so for smoking, why not here as well?

People seem to think they have the right to use their phones any time at any place. Also, right now, passive blocking is just as illegal as active jamming, if done intentionally. As it can stop people from calling 911. What the hell did these people do before cell phones? Cry a puddle if they tripped and scraped their knee?

[deepsand]

waldojim, on 01 March 2011 - 09:08 PM, said:

deepsand, on 01 March 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

Passive blocking is there an option.

Such establishments might also establish, conspicuously display, and consistently enforce a policy banning the use of cell phones. If they can do so for smoking, why not here as well?

People seem to think they have the right to use their phones any time at any place. Also, right now, passive blocking is just as illegal as active jamming, if done intentionally. As it can stop people from calling 911. What the hell did these people do before cell phones? Cry a puddle if they tripped and scraped their knee?

The Communications Act of 1934 does not require that one accommodate or facilitate wireless transmissions from within ones own structures. Were that the case, each and every building that in any way attenuated such signals would be in violation of said Act.

In fact, not only do many ordinary construction materials act to so block cell signals, but there are both materials and supplements, such as paints, currently being marketed for such specific purpose.

[wired4action]

deepsand, on 02 March 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

...In fact, not only do many ordinary construction materials act to so block cell signals, but there are both materials and supplements, such as paints, currently being marketed for such specific purpose.

I think that's a good solution (too bad good manners have to be forced on people, though). The only problem is the first time something happens, like a heart attack or shooting or hostage taking or... whatever-- the lawyers will be all over because somebody might have been saved if their phone worked inside.

[waldojim]

wired4action, on 04 March 2011 - 07:16 PM, said:

I think that's a good solution (too bad good manners have to be forced on people, though). The only problem is the first time something happens, like a heart attack or shooting or hostage taking or... whatever-- the lawyers will be all over because somebody might have been saved if their phone worked inside.

Don't most businesses own phones?

edit: Also, this is where electronic jammers would be better, as they can selectively jam the signal. Use the building materials to block out all cell phone signals, then get Verizon/Att/etc to install repeaters that are ONLY good for emergency calls.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 04 March 2011 - 07:44 PM