In article <mike-407757.00511107112...@news.eternal-september.org>, Mike Ash (m...@mikeash.com) says...
> In article > <919d59b8-57ba-4253-a12c-35eec09ce...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Call me coward, but for me it's easier to say "I don't have a cell > > phone because I'm a Luddite, I'm afraid it'll give me cancer, etc." > > than "Don't bother trying to call me, honey, my phone will be turned > > off."
> It's easier yet to just not say anything. People will call you, you > won't answer, and they will leave a message for you, or not. You call > them back, or not.
> I've never, ever had anyone ask me why I didn't answer my cell phone > when they called.
While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage varies in your neck of woods.
Of course, if I did know people like that, I'd instruct them to deal. My phone is for my convenience. (And for the peace of mind of people who care about me, but the fact of the phone is generally sufficient for that.)
>> > Call me coward, but for me it's easier to say "I don't have a cell >> > phone because I'm a Luddite, I'm afraid it'll give me cancer, etc." >> > than "Don't bother trying to call me, honey, my phone will be turned >> > off."
>> It's easier yet to just not say anything. People will call you, you >> won't answer, and they will leave a message for you, or not. You call >> them back, or not.
>> I've never, ever had anyone ask me why I didn't answer my cell phone >> when they called.
>While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when >they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are >fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage >varies in your neck of woods.
>Of course, if I did know people like that, I'd instruct them to deal. >My phone is for my convenience. (And for the peace of mind of people >who care about me, but the fact of the phone is generally sufficient >for that.)
Well, here's a Miss Manners article about somebody who does get very miffed if the callee doesn't answer him then and there. Whether cell-phone or landline, isn't specified.
-- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at hotmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress. Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
> In article <mike-407757.00511107112...@news.eternal-september.org>, > Mike Ash (m...@mikeash.com) says... >> In article >> <919d59b8-57ba-4253-a12c-35eec09ce...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Call me coward, but for me it's easier to say "I don't have a cell >>> phone because I'm a Luddite, I'm afraid it'll give me cancer, etc." >>> than "Don't bother trying to call me, honey, my phone will be turned >>> off."
>> It's easier yet to just not say anything. People will call you, you >> won't answer, and they will leave a message for you, or not. You call >> them back, or not.
>> I've never, ever had anyone ask me why I didn't answer my cell phone >> when they called.
> While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when > they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are > fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage > varies in your neck of woods.
It's never happened to me, either.
There's lots of things that are said to be common, but if they always happened to someone else, they may not actually be.
> On 2009-11-07 18:12:21 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> said:
> > In article <mike-407757.00511107112...@news.eternal-september.org>, > > Mike Ash (m...@mikeash.com) says... > >> In article > >> <919d59b8-57ba-4253-a12c-35eec09ce...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > >> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Call me coward, but for me it's easier to say "I don't have a cell > >>> phone because I'm a Luddite, I'm afraid it'll give me cancer, etc." > >>> than "Don't bother trying to call me, honey, my phone will be turned > >>> off."
> >> It's easier yet to just not say anything. People will call you, you > >> won't answer, and they will leave a message for you, or not. You call > >> them back, or not.
> >> I've never, ever had anyone ask me why I didn't answer my cell phone > >> when they called.
> > While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when > > they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are > > fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage > > varies in your neck of woods.
> It's never happened to me, either.
> There's lots of things that are said to be common, but if they always > happened to someone else, they may not actually be.
The impression is based on personal experiences related to me by people close to me, and I have no reason to doubt them. Of course, I can't judge whether their or my experience is more typical.
It seems more common among the younger, always on the phone people (or Kids These Days, as I like to call them), which might help to explain why I haven't run into them. Also, not that many people have my number in the first place.
In article <MPG.2560558278819e34989...@news.kolumbus.fi>, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when > they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are > fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage > varies in your neck of woods.
> Of course, if I did know people like that, I'd instruct them to deal. > My phone is for my convenience. (And for the peace of mind of people > who care about me, but the fact of the phone is generally sufficient > for that.)
If such people exist, I doubt they'll stop being annoyed just because you tell them that you don't have a cell phone, so not having one wouldn't help.
Even if they did, well, who cares? Like you say, instruct them to deal. If you get angry at my personal telephone-answering habits, that's your problem, not mine.
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
> In article <mike-407757.00511107112...@news.eternal-september.org>, > Mike Ash (m...@mikeash.com) says...
> > In article > > <919d59b8-57ba-4253-a12c-35eec09ce...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Call me coward, but for me it's easier to say "I don't have a cell > > > phone because I'm a Luddite, I'm afraid it'll give me cancer, etc." > > > than "Don't bother trying to call me, honey, my phone will be turned > > > off."
> > It's easier yet to just not say anything. People will call you, you > > won't answer, and they will leave a message for you, or not. You call > > them back, or not.
> > I've never, ever had anyone ask me why I didn't answer my cell phone > > when they called.
> While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when > they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are > fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage > varies in your neck of woods.
> Of course, if I did know people like that, I'd instruct them to deal. > My phone is for my convenience. (And for the peace of mind of people > who care about me, but the fact of the phone is generally sufficient > for that.)
Kurt Busiek wrote: > On 2009-11-07 18:12:21 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> said:
>> In article <mike-407757.00511107112...@news.eternal-september.org>, >> Mike Ash (m...@mikeash.com) says... >>> In article >>> <919d59b8-57ba-4253-a12c-35eec09ce...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >>> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Call me coward, but for me it's easier to say "I don't have a cell >>>> phone because I'm a Luddite, I'm afraid it'll give me cancer, etc." >>>> than "Don't bother trying to call me, honey, my phone will be turned >>>> off."
>>> It's easier yet to just not say anything. People will call you, you >>> won't answer, and they will leave a message for you, or not. You call >>> them back, or not.
>>> I've never, ever had anyone ask me why I didn't answer my cell phone >>> when they called.
>> While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when >> they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are >> fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage >> varies in your neck of woods.
> It's never happened to me, either.
> There's lots of things that are said to be common, but if they always > happened to someone else, they may not actually be.
> kdb
Maybe you've never worked in an office in which a lot of work is done by phone, and you (or your caller) get tied up in mutual message-leaving but can never seem to actually make contact. Some people get very annoyed by this. I do myself, if the same people who let their voice mail pick up my calls and then seem to invariably call me when I'm not in and leave incomprehensible or incomplete messages for me also don't answer their email.
Cheryl wrote: > Kurt Busiek wrote: > > On 2009-11-07 18:12:21 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> said:
> >> In article <mike-407757.00511107112...@news.eternal-september.org>, > >> Mike Ash (m...@mikeash.com) says... > >>> In article > >>> <919d59b8-57ba-4253-a12c-35eec09ce...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > >>> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Call me coward, but for me it's easier to say "I don't have a cell > >>>> phone because I'm a Luddite, I'm afraid it'll give me cancer, etc." > >>>> than "Don't bother trying to call me, honey, my phone will be turned > >>>> off."
> >>> It's easier yet to just not say anything. People will call you, you > >>> won't answer, and they will leave a message for you, or not. You call > >>> them back, or not.
> >>> I've never, ever had anyone ask me why I didn't answer my cell phone > >>> when they called.
> >> While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when > >> they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are > >> fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage > >> varies in your neck of woods.
> > It's never happened to me, either.
> > There's lots of things that are said to be common, but if they always > > happened to someone else, they may not actually be.
> Maybe you've never worked in an office in which a lot of work is done by > phone, and you (or your caller) get tied up in mutual message-leaving > but can never seem to actually make contact. Some people get very > annoyed by this. I do myself, if the same people who let their voice > mail pick up my calls and then seem to invariably call me when I'm not > in and leave incomprehensible or incomplete messages for me also don't > answer their email.
One, that's not the same scenario.
Two, how does the answer "I don't have a cell phone" change this? If a person is going to get mad at "I didn't answer my cell phone" their just likely to get annoyed with "I don't have a cell phone."
- W. Citoan -- We are the unwilling, led by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary for the ungrateful. -- GI helmet during Vietnam War
W. Citoan wrote: > Cheryl wrote: >> Kurt Busiek wrote: >>> On 2009-11-07 18:12:21 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> said:
>>>> In article <mike-407757.00511107112...@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>> Mike Ash (m...@mikeash.com) says... >>>>> In article >>>>> <919d59b8-57ba-4253-a12c-35eec09ce...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Call me coward, but for me it's easier to say "I don't have a cell >>>>>> phone because I'm a Luddite, I'm afraid it'll give me cancer, etc." >>>>>> than "Don't bother trying to call me, honey, my phone will be turned >>>>>> off." >>>>> It's easier yet to just not say anything. People will call you, you >>>>> won't answer, and they will leave a message for you, or not. You call >>>>> them back, or not.
>>>>> I've never, ever had anyone ask me why I didn't answer my cell phone >>>>> when they called. >>>> While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when >>>> they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are >>>> fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage >>>> varies in your neck of woods. >>> It's never happened to me, either.
>>> There's lots of things that are said to be common, but if they always >>> happened to someone else, they may not actually be. >> Maybe you've never worked in an office in which a lot of work is done by >> phone, and you (or your caller) get tied up in mutual message-leaving >> but can never seem to actually make contact. Some people get very >> annoyed by this. I do myself, if the same people who let their voice >> mail pick up my calls and then seem to invariably call me when I'm not >> in and leave incomprehensible or incomplete messages for me also don't >> answer their email.
> One, that's not the same scenario.
> Two, how does the answer "I don't have a cell phone" change this? If a > person is going to get mad at "I didn't answer my cell phone" their just > likely to get annoyed with "I don't have a cell phone."
> - W. Citoan
This is the scenario of 'people getting mad at you when they can't reach you by phone', as mentioned above in the passage I was responding to.
I can't imagine why the people who get mad at you because they can't reach you by phone would be annoyed because you don't have a particular type of phone.
There are people who seem a little baffled that not everyone has a cell phone, but I wouldn't call that 'mad', it's the same kind of bafflement I have that some people can't seem to coordinate anything without a cell phone. But then, I never expect to be picked up at airports, or to pick people up there (which seems to be a common problem with others), and for any other kind of meeting, I and the other person simply agree on a time and try to make it.
Maybe some people think that everyone should answer all phones all the time, so it isn't particularly a cell phone issue. They're probably the same people who, if they hear a phone (any kind) ringing, are incapable of not answering it.
I simply have an answering machine on my phone, and if someone who doesn't know me well says they want my number to call me, give it to them, adding 'There's an answering machine on that line, so if I'm not there, just leave a message', and then always check and respond to my messages promptly. No one gets angry, no one expects me to always answer my phone, and no one cares what kind of phone the number in question is attached to.
I have heard of people who get annoyed because someone doesn't have some kind of answering machine, though. These seem to have replaced the people who got annoyed because someone HAD an answering machine.
Cheryl wrote: > W. Citoan wrote: >> Cheryl wrote: >>> Kurt Busiek wrote: >>>> On 2009-11-07 18:12:21 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> >>>> said:
>>>>> In article <mike-407757.00511107112...@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>> Mike Ash (m...@mikeash.com) says... >>>>>> In article >>>>>> <919d59b8-57ba-4253-a12c-35eec09ce...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Call me coward, but for me it's easier to say "I don't have a cell >>>>>>> phone because I'm a Luddite, I'm afraid it'll give me cancer, etc." >>>>>>> than "Don't bother trying to call me, honey, my phone will be turned >>>>>>> off." >>>>>> It's easier yet to just not say anything. People will call you, you >>>>>> won't answer, and they will leave a message for you, or not. You call >>>>>> them back, or not.
>>>>>> I've never, ever had anyone ask me why I didn't answer my cell phone >>>>>> when they called. >>>>> While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when >>>>> they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are >>>>> fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage >>>>> varies in your neck of woods. >>>> It's never happened to me, either.
>>>> There's lots of things that are said to be common, but if they >>>> always happened to someone else, they may not actually be. >>> Maybe you've never worked in an office in which a lot of work is >>> done by phone, and you (or your caller) get tied up in mutual >>> message-leaving but can never seem to actually make contact. Some >>> people get very annoyed by this. I do myself, if the same people who >>> let their voice mail pick up my calls and then seem to invariably >>> call me when I'm not in and leave incomprehensible or incomplete >>> messages for me also don't answer their email.
>> One, that's not the same scenario. >> Two, how does the answer "I don't have a cell phone" change this? If a >> person is going to get mad at "I didn't answer my cell phone" their just >> likely to get annoyed with "I don't have a cell phone."
>> - W. Citoan
> This is the scenario of 'people getting mad at you when they can't reach > you by phone', as mentioned above in the passage I was responding to.
> I can't imagine why the people who get mad at you because they can't > reach you by phone would be annoyed because you don't have a particular > type of phone.
Because it's normal, dealing with a landline, to recognize that you can't reached at various times. They may be the sort to be annoyed that they can't reach you, but they know that you can't be expected to answer when you're physically away from your desk, etc.
If you have a CELL, however, the expectation is that you can be reached *ANYWHERE* -- at home, at the beach, at work, in the bathroom -- and thus they'd expect that they CAN reach you there.
> > Two, how does the answer "I don't have a cell phone" change this? If a > > person is going to get mad at "I didn't answer my cell phone" their just > > likely to get annoyed with "I don't have a cell phone."
> This is the scenario of 'people getting mad at you when they can't reach > you by phone', as mentioned above in the passage I was responding to.
Not exactly. It's people getting annoyed over a series of incomplete communications. Not a one off call as originally described.
> I can't imagine why the people who get mad at you because they can't > reach you by phone would be annoyed because you don't have a particular > type of phone.
Exactly. If they are going to be idiots, saying "I don't have a cell phone" is not going to satisfy them any more than saying "I don't take incoming calls."
- W. Citoan -- Whatever you choose, do not seek to carry out easy tasks. -- Adolf Von Baeyer
> > I can't imagine why the people who get mad at you because they can't > > reach you by phone would be annoyed because you don't have a particular > > type of phone.
> Because it's normal, dealing with a landline, to recognize that you > can't reached at various times. They may be the sort to be annoyed that > they can't reach you, but they know that you can't be expected to answer > when you're physically away from your desk, etc.
> If you have a CELL, however, the expectation is that you can be reached > *ANYWHERE* -- at home, at the beach, at work, in the bathroom -- and > thus they'd expect that they CAN reach you there.
Can be, not will be. If they're are people who expect every single call to a cell phone to be answered and are irritated when it's not, they are idiots. They're plenty of places & activities[1] people engage in where you cannot stop a take a call (business meetings, playing sports, etc.)
[1] Unfortunately, public performances (movies, theater, concerts) have seem to fallen out of this.
- W. Citoan -- Whatever you choose, do not seek to carry out easy tasks. -- Adolf Von Baeyer
> Because it's normal, dealing with a landline, to recognize that you > can't reached at various times. They may be the sort to be annoyed that > they can't reach you, but they know that you can't be expected to answer > when you're physically away from your desk, etc.
> If you have a CELL, however, the expectation is that you can be > reached *ANYWHERE* -- at home, at the beach, at work, in the bathroom -- > and thus they'd expect that they CAN reach you there.
I missed that entirely. I suppose I assumed that people who have cell phones might sometimes leave them at home, lose them, turn them off, be sitting on the toilet, talking to someone important to them, etc etc.
I wonder why the people who get annoyed haven't thought of those possibilities?
> I missed that entirely. I suppose I assumed that people who have cell > phones might sometimes leave them at home, lose them, turn them off, > be sitting on the toilet, talking to someone important to them, etc > etc.
> I wonder why the people who get annoyed haven't thought of those > possibilities?
The people who get annoyed assume that It's All About Them. And probably not just about cell phones. I haven't had much problem myself, but if I had one of those people as a boss, for example, I might avoid getting a cell or simply avoid letting them know I had one.
> Kurt Busiek wrote: >> On 2009-11-07 18:12:21 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> said:
>>> In article <mike-407757.00511107112...@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> Mike Ash (m...@mikeash.com) says... >>>> In article >>>> <919d59b8-57ba-4253-a12c-35eec09ce...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >>>> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Call me coward, but for me it's easier to say "I don't have a cell >>>>> phone because I'm a Luddite, I'm afraid it'll give me cancer, etc." >>>>> than "Don't bother trying to call me, honey, my phone will be turned >>>>> off."
>>>> It's easier yet to just not say anything. People will call you, you >>>> won't answer, and they will leave a message for you, or not. You call >>>> them back, or not.
>>>> I've never, ever had anyone ask me why I didn't answer my cell phone >>>> when they called.
>>> While I haven't personally had dealings with people who get mad when >>> they can't reach you by phone, I have been told people like that are >>> fairly common these days. Maybe you've just been lucky. Or mileage >>> varies in your neck of woods.
>> It's never happened to me, either.
>> There's lots of things that are said to be common, but if they always >> happened to someone else, they may not actually be.
> Maybe you've never worked in an office in which a lot of work is done > by phone, and you (or your caller) get tied up in mutual > message-leaving but can never seem to actually make contact. Some > people get very annoyed by this. I do myself, if the same people who > let their voice mail pick up my calls and then seem to invariably call > me when I'm not in and leave incomprehensible or incomplete messages > for me also don't answer their email.
Oh, there are people I get annoyed at because I can't reach them by phone. There are editors I won't work with because they're so bad at returning phone calls.
But that's not the example at hand, which is people who get mad if you don't answer your cell phone immediately when they call. While I'm sure such people exist, I doubt they're "fairly common."
Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote: > I have heard of people who get annoyed because someone doesn't have some > kind of answering machine, though. These seem to have replaced the > people who got annoyed because someone HAD an answering machine.
I don't 8-) People who know me well know that they have to let the phone ring a long time in case I'm outside. I have an outside bell, but it can take me a long time to reach the phone. If I don't get to it in time, I figure it's some stranger 8-) There's voice mail on my cell, but, as I've said, it can be weeks between times I check it.
-- Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books: habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
W. Citoan <wcit...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote: >Cheryl wrote: >> W. Citoan wrote:
>> > One, that's not the same scenario.
>> > Two, how does the answer "I don't have a cell phone" change this? If a >> > person is going to get mad at "I didn't answer my cell phone" their just >> > likely to get annoyed with "I don't have a cell phone."
>> This is the scenario of 'people getting mad at you when they can't reach >> you by phone', as mentioned above in the passage I was responding to.
>Not exactly. It's people getting annoyed over a series of incomplete >communications. Not a one off call as originally described.
>> I can't imagine why the people who get mad at you because they can't >> reach you by phone would be annoyed because you don't have a particular >> type of phone.
>Exactly. If they are going to be idiots, saying "I don't have a cell >phone" is not going to satisfy them any more than saying "I don't take >incoming calls."
Yes. Their response will be, "WELL, GET ONE!!!"
-- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at hotmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress. Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:32:26 GMT, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> Yes. Their response will be, "WELL, GET ONE!!!"
I think that that would be an appropriate time to tell the fellow that if he feels like dropping in to take a long walk, he'll have to wait until spring on account of we've taken our short pier in for the winter.
>> Because it's normal, dealing with a landline, to recognize that >> you can't reached at various times. They may be the sort to be annoyed >> that they can't reach you, but they know that you can't be expected to >> answer when you're physically away from your desk, etc.
>> If you have a CELL, however, the expectation is that you can be >> reached *ANYWHERE* -- at home, at the beach, at work, in the bathroom >> -- and thus they'd expect that they CAN reach you there.
> I missed that entirely. I suppose I assumed that people who have cell > phones might sometimes leave them at home, lose them, turn them off, be > sitting on the toilet, talking to someone important to them, etc etc.
> I wonder why the people who get annoyed haven't thought of those > possibilities?
One of those items is no impediment to many cell phone users. Even one of my own nieces proudly announced to me that she was sitting on the toilet while calling me. I'm glad I couldn't hear background noises.
