Like I said, she’s just on call to come in. We won’t be calling her anymore. Sadly, this is the third such incident. Some people think that a cell phone takes precidence over everything else in life, including business phones calls in an office where we get about 50% of our customers via the phone.
We’re getting together Monday to revise our policy on the use of cell phones in the office. I’m all for two warnings, and on the third such incident, they are off our list.
YAY! Oh to know who the soft drink pitcher was and to be able to buy him/her drinks and dinner!
Oh PUH lease! You ARE an idiot. The reasons that the conductor, or bus driver would look at someone as if they had three heads are more likely due to their opinion that they don’t get paid enough to have to get into a “Hassle” that way, rather than that the person making the complaint hasn’t made a legitimate one.
Take cell phones completely out of the equation. If a person, or persons are behaving in such a way as to make life unpleasant for others around them, then it is necessary to make sure that they understand that and cease their activity.
As many others have said in this thread, too damn many times people are just too meek or “I don’t want to make waves” to enforce good manners.
Societal pressure once ensured a certain level of appropriate behaviour out in public, it is a sad unfortunate time we live in that this is no longer true.
That not enough people react and enforce decent manners upon these idiots certainly does NOT mean that there is anything wrong with those who complain, it merely illustrates that fewer people in this day and age are willing to take a stand for what’s right.
From Featherlou:
To Featherlou:
Nice misreading! Its not that people need to order pizza on trains (good luck with the delivery), it is that people need to get off trains eventually. It is that trains stop at many, many places…and not all trains stop at all places. Communication is necessary to make sure you can be picked up from the station, instead of paying $20-$40 nightly for cabs home. Also, how likely are you to do as I ask if I bark curt orders at you over the phone? Sorry I lost you, but if you’d called ahead, I’m sure someone could have been waiting at the station for you. 
From CosmoDan:
To CosmoDan:
‘Setting an example’ is fine. That’s sitting there quietly and doing the right thing. ‘Teaching an example’ requires a badge or authority from AMTRAK/Conrail/whatever. Vigilante much? :dubious:
From CanvasShoes:
To CanvasShoes:
Sorry, but I have to call Bullshit on that one. (I’ll ignore the Idiot comment and consider the source. Pot-kettle-black, and all that. ) Conductors and transit police have programs in place to handle problems on a train…from loud conversations, to people picking fights. It was mentioned extensively on another thread about drunk girls on the Chicago-L, but don’t kid yourself that the Transit Authority doesn’t have similar rules in place or won’t stop a train and drag people off if they feel it passes a certain threshold.
From CanvasShoes:
(note: bolding is mine)
To CanvasShoes
Enforce? Who trained you to enforce? Who elected/appointed/hired you to Enforce? If you have a Badge, fine, but most people here don’t. Jesus-Fucking-Christ, since When did ‘Fighting Ignorance’ mean ‘Becoming a Vigilante’??? Does Cecil really agree with you people forcing confrontations (and probably fights, because once you’re in somebody’s face who isn’t expecting it, that’s exactly where you are forcing it to go) and encouraging other people to do so? Over someone who has to use the phone?
And don’t hide behind this ‘Sophie Tucker’ con. You know full well you’re going to scream/threaten/intimidate as needed when the situation arises. You’ll escalate until you get a reaction, never thinking about whether or not it might be a very very Bad reaction. And what if the person on the cell phone has mace? A knife? A gun? What about those people who have taken martial arts extensively that you really shouldn’t startle from behind without major medical insurance?
Even back in the theatre thread, a thread that I started myself over a month ago, I said that I’d go to the Manager…not that I’d take the law/ theatre policy into my own hands and face down the girl on the cell phone…forcing her into a fight or flight situation. And theatre seats can exit from both the right and the left. Train seats have only One exit to the aisle, which you might very well be blocking while you are trying to ‘Teach a Lesson’.
Are there any cops or law enforcement people who ever read these threads? Because I really want to hear one of them tell you all you are all 100% right to initiate confrontations on Mass Transit. (And don’t kid yourselves; initiating a confrontation is exactly what you are telling people to do.) I want to hear them say that Conductors have no responsibility for problems that arise on their trains. Oh, and that Transit Police are there just for show. :smack:
Didn’t want you to think I decided to ignore this, I’ve been away for a couple of days…
If that’s not what you meant, I apologize for mis-interpreting, but the following led me to believe that you are saying that since rudeness is the accepted default, then my right to object to said rudeness is void.
Bolding mine:
I expect that people will more often than not take their social cues from the surrounding group and act accordingly. My expectations are not out of line here. Yes, people stand up at a rock concert. I get that. I don’t find that rude when it is what the majority of the group is doing. Being the only person standing in a large section of a stadium, and flat out refusing to sit when called on it earns you at least an honorable mention in the butthole of the year awards. My expectations notwithstanding.
Really, if I’m still not understanding, could I get a little help here? I’ll admit to being dense sometimes in my interpretation of what’s being said, and I’d rather not try to argue a dead horse…deadder. Heh.
Youn know me too well. You must have seen me in one of my many nightly barfights, as I toss bodies out the door, each with a broken bottle ground into their faces.
(If I knew how to make a roll-eyes smilie, here would be the perfect place).
Why is it you refuse to admit that being loud, obnoxious and rude in public is offensive and people should be corrected? Why do you refuse to see that everyone in this thread differentiates between people who talk on their cell phones and people who yell into their cell phones?
And why is it I continue to try and reason with you? “It only annoys the pig.”
Ah. At the risk of being shot at from both sides, may I offer this comment:
Trains are noisy beasts, and to make oneself heard on the phone while riding in one, it can be necessary to speak louder than one would in, say, some bosky dell far from the madd(en)ing crowd. What the cell-phoner considers a slight elevation necessary for clarity, surrounding passengers may perceive as yelling.
I’m also wondering how many of the cell-yellers have impaired hearing, perhaps from too many years of ultra-decibel music or other aural assaults.
What the hell is up with Count Blucher’s screen name switching back and forth from quietman1920? Is anyone else seeing that, or is it just me?
It’s easy:
;rolleyes;
only replace the semi-Count Blucher with a Count Blucher.
Of course I admit that being loud and obnoxious in pubic is offensive. Asking someone to stop is the proscribed and universally accepted answer to that. What you are doing, and what I have a problem with, is engaging in an action to force someone to do something against their will.
I don’t accept that because it is a Subjective judgment by its very nature, and the people rendering it have no training determining what should deserve this ‘punishment’ you’ve decided to meet out.
How many decibels are acceptable; how many are not? Would two people who agree with you here in this thread, standing side by side on a train, even agree when something crosses the line? Where is the line? And what recourse does the person have who really wasn’t all that loud on an afternoon when you’ve just had a bad day? I see this punishment that you prescribe as ripe for abuse; I see it becoming less a lesson on manners and more a way not to ‘kick the dog’. It has no checks or balances.
Thinking back, could it be that even one of the people on the train that you have razzed into hanging up in your long career Really Was just trying to call home and arrange for transport from the train station? Is that even possible…Eve?
I wonder what you’d be saying to that one victim, the one who just wanted to arrange a ride home and who really wasn’t all that loud in hind-sight, if he or she confronted you right here and right now, in The Pit, surrounded by your peers? Would you have the grace and the guts to look them in the eye and admit you were wrong?
Or would you just hide behind the company line?
Is it universally accepted, or is it proscribed? It can’t be both at the same time, you know. I suspect you meant “prescribed,” which raises the question: prescribed by who? For something that is supposedly so universal, you seem to be awfully alone in this thread.
And what, exactly, is she forcing someone to do against their will?
Precisely what sort of training is necessary to tell someone to shut up? Oh, wait, since Eve was talking about singing, maybe you meant voice training! Tragically, there is currently no regulatory body deciding who may or may not sing in public, so I’m afraid your point here is moot.
Jesus Christ, “checks and balances?” Are we ammending the Constitution here? I thought the thread was about “people who are too loud in public,” with a side discussion-cum-object lesson about “morons who don’t know when to shut up,” (thanks for acting as our cite in that second one, btw) but I apparently missed the point where it veered into theories on the limitation of executive balance.
So, you’re saying that while Eve, while on her own, may have had the guts to face someone down in public and read them the riot act in person, would somehow lack the gumption to do it again on an anonymous, text-based message board, surrounded by people who would be more than happy to cheer her on the entire time?
Does that scenario actually make sense to you?
What, exactly, is the “company” in question here, and what is the “line” behind which she would hide?
You don’t even know what “company line” means, do you?
My post was directed at quietman1920 - is that you with a screenname change? Just curious about who’s who around here.
My mis-reading was intentional - I was exaggerating for effect, to demonstrate how badly muddled the message was in the post I was addressing.
Now, as for the discussion at hand, there are those who say that the more laws a society has, the more laws it needs (I would suggest this extends to law-enforcement officers as well). In other words, a self-policing society seems to work better at creating law-abiding citizens. When you create a law for every situation, and law-enforcement officers to enforce them, people tend to get the idea that if there isn’t a specific law prohibiting what they’re doing, it’s okay, or if there isn’t a law-enforcement officer around, it’s okay to get away with it, rather than looking after their own behaviour and the behaviour of their friends and neighbours.
Um, no, it’s not even possible . . . BECAUSE I CAN HEAR EVERY GODDAM WORD HE WAS SHOUTING INTO HIS PHONE.
(It’s like popcorn, I can’t stop replying to this idiot)
And I suspect you know that the typo was meant to be ‘prescribed’, that you should know that polite society ‘prescribes’ that speaking to someone is the answer, and that it is universally accepted by polite society. That I am awfully alone in this thread doesn’t make me wrong; it merely demonstrates the lower standards of The Pit. (I suppose I’m expected to swear or insult you here, but why bother?)
By her own admission, she’s forcing people to hang up by vocalizing so loudly that her victim can’t possibly hear who they are talking to; do keep up.
I’m sure that somewhere there are rules against loud noises or disturbances on trains; the same that she should apply against the person bothering her, instead of sinking to a lower level. I have no access to Westlaw. A Conductor or a member of Law Enforcement might relate to you more information on that (there seem to be less of them here than people taking my side…I hope you aren’t saying that they’re all wrong too). And as for what sort of training is necessary to tell someone to shut up? Oh, I don’t know… What works on you?
Only one (1) ‘m’ in ‘amending’, but kinda, yeah. You see, you are agreeing to implement ‘punishment’ without any right of the accused to due process or a fair standard by which to have punishment implemented.
[BugBunny]Constitutional, isn’t it…?[/BugsBunny]
So this board only tolerates one point of view, one opinion? And might makes right, eh Miller?
The company would be her company of supporters here, Miller. Whatever position she takes, because she’s Eve, she must be supported (and she has been, with blind loyalty). It’s type of groupthink-mentality that I’ve discovered in this thread. Yes, I know what it means very well. And, my position remains unchanged, despite the bullying.
But what does any of this change? She’ll be harassing someone else by close of business tomorrow despite any of our points of view. And, I don’t really see merit in sharing my point of view with closed minds either.
Ah! You mean the way they are vocalizing so loudly that I can’t possibly read or nap or work?
Good job with the quote tags there, sparky.
That’s what you suspect, eh? What was your first clue there? Was it the part where I said, “I suspect you meant ‘"prescribed’”? Truly, there is no hiding from your dizzying intellect.
No, she’s not. There’s absolutely nothing she’s doing that prevents them from continuing to use their phone. There’s no “force” involved here. Much like “assualt,” “vigilante,” “company line,” and “reasoned argument,” I believe we have found yet another term for which you do not fully understand the meaning.
How is she sinking to a lower level? At worst, she’s sinking to exactly the same level, isn’t she?
It seems like there’s no one taking your side in this, so that means that, somehow, there are actually fewer than zero law enforcement people in this thread! What a strange anomaly you have discovered. I do not know if I agree or disagree with non-exsistent policemen. All the policemen I’ve ever encountered have been fully exsistent. This is new territory for me.
In this thread? The absence of idiots would work well. As long as they’re around, I just can’t stop myself from pointing and laughing.
You’re a lunatic.
No, it tolerates a multiplicity of view points, provided they are informed, cogent, and relevant. When you can hit two out of three, come back and maybe you’ll be worth talking to.
Right. Because people couldn’t possibly be disagreeing with you because they think you’re an idiot. It’s because we all love Eve so much! It has nothing - nothing at all! - to do with the empty-headed bunk you’re spewing in this thread.
I think your inexperience with thinking in general has led you to misidentify the particular brand of thinking being employed in this thread.
Wow, so being an aggressive ass doesn’t get you to change your mind? So, tell me, what made you think it would work on Eve when you first started posting to this thread.
No, no! I’m very open-minded! I’ve read your posts, considered them carefully, and come to the conclusion that you’re full of shit. You need to remember that being “open minded” does not mean “agrees with Count Blucher.”
But, I will agree with you this far: I don’t see the merit of you sharing your point of view, either. Well, except for the comedy value, of course. Tell us again how singing loudly is a form of assault! That one never gets old!
Wow! I had no idea I was She Who Must Be Obeyed. So I guess all the times I’ve been royally chewed-out here, called a pompous, elitist snob and a clueless bitch . . . I could have those people fired from my company?
Blucher, people are agreeing with Eve because she’s right, that’s all.
It’s rude to carry on a loud conversation in a space where people are obligated to share with you.
Most people understand this. I have used my cell on public transit, when it’s necessary, and possible to manage without irritating anyone. These are short conversations, and as unobtrusive as possible.
In contrast, the last cell conversation I had on transit went like this:
ring ring
Mudd: Hello?
Rob: Hey man. Just wondering what you’re up to tonight.
Mudd: I’m on my way home on the #99. It’s hot and we’re packed in here like sardines.
Rob: Okay, I’ll let you go, then.
Mudd: I’ll give you a call when I get off the bus.
Rob: Later, then.
Mudd: Later.
click
The conversation went that way because both parties understand that hashing out our weekend plans over the rumble of a bus in the hearing of many people who have no practical way to remove themselves from it would be rude. I called him back at the transfer point and we worked out what we were doing, then. No inconvenience to us, and no irritation for the people I was sharing a confined space with.
It’s not a hard concept to grasp. At least, it shouldn’t be – I’ve been driven up the wall by people who sit next to me and shout into their phones loud enough to be heard (and understood) over my walkman. “Did you see the pants Kelly wore today? Oh my god! They are so ghetto.” Shut the fuck up, you nattering twat.
You know, we could be encountering a generation gap here. It has been pretty well established on this board that us old farts are much more irritated by other people’s cellphone conversations than young people. Maybe Count Blucher is a young guy who doesn’t get what all the fuss is about.
Or he’s just a tool.
<mmmmmmmmmmmm>
Hang on, I’m getting a transmission from the hive mind.
<mmmmmmmmmmm>
Ah. Okay. My apologies. He’s not a tool.
The hive mind informs me that the proper characterization of this fellow is “wanker.”
I’m glad we were able to get that squared away.
<mmmmmmmmmmm>
Clarified. Not squared away. Clarified.
Anything else I’m not thinking correctly on? Hivey?
Okay then.