Don't text during a movie at the Alamo, or else...

[Effingham]

My only concern about making places cell unfriendly is what about people who are on call? I would assume that doctors, healthcare professionals, and others who are "on call" do so with cell phones today. I guess this just means that you couldn't go to a movie or a play if you were on call. Suddenly I feel very sorry for single practicioners (like my doctor), who are basically on call the entire week.

You know, people survived without the INSTANT RESPONSE of cell phones for decades. They seem to have functioned quite well.

We are really far too trapped by our addiction to instant satisfaction.

There is *nothing* so urgent that you can't wait two hours or so. If there *is* potentially something you are waiting for (a wife about to go into labor, for example), maybe you should just not be going to a movie in the first place.

 

[Bluebird Marsha]

I am willing to make a minor exception for cell phone usage in theaters and restaurants. If I hear the person say something like "They found me a kidney/lung/heart? I'm on my way!" I will not raise a stink, and will probably cheer. Short of that, meh. I hate my cell phone. It's nothing but an electronic leash!

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think it's probably still possible to say that most adults today didn't grow up with cell phones/pocket communications devices -- so maybe the question they need to ask if they find such devices to be a burden is "what did I do, how did I live my life, how did I keep in touch with people who I needed to be in touch with before I had this technology?" And the natural followup question is "Is my life really, truly, honestly *better* now than it was then?"

This is the last generation that will be able to ask that question, so it's well worth thinking long and hard about.

 

[rue]

I know my answer is yes.... it was better before and that's why I got rid of the evil thing.

 

[bunnyb.gal]

LizzieMaine's idea sounds fun but I'm also wondering if the younger generation will actually get what all the vintage devices stand for.

I believe there are devices/systems that interfere with reception of cell phone signals. A lot of the theatres here have them. I've noticed that in many multipurpose halls, cell phone reception is possible only in the lobbies, and the antenna disappears as soon as entering the halls themselves. I've also noticed it theaters (both movies and stage performance) as well.

I've gotten so fed up of having to hear the minutiae of strangers' lives, as a captive audience on public transportation, I actually went so far as to investigate private cell phone signal blockers; unfortunately illegal, in my understanding...(and when it's not the cell phone users, it's the curs in the back of the bus with their (invariably) r&b music over tinny speakers.) Ugh!

I only publicly speak on my phone to whisper, "I'm running late - be there in X - see you in Y - bye!". I really dislike having a mobile. People expect you to be umbilical with the thing.

Anyway, the young "lady" - ladette, rather - made a complete idiot of herself with that message. Anyone who would try to sort a problem using language of that sort, well, can't really lay claim to much credibility, can they? Good on the Alamo!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here's something to think about. We sometimes hear in threads like this that "if they'd had this type of technology in the Era they'd have been just as bad as people are today." Well, I'm not so sure of that, and here's why: the idea of using a telephone for recreational conversations wasn't really a part of the culture then. A person dropped into 2011 from 1937 wouldn't grasp that notion at all.

Those of us here who use vintage phones regularly know one reason why this was true -- the equipment simply wasn't comfortable to use for more than five or ten minutes at a stretch. It was designed, and intended, for short, to-the-point business or household conversations, not idle gab, and for a long time, that's how the Bell System promoted it -- as a tool, not a lifestyle.

The postwar era changed that, when Bell shifted from a service oriented organization to one driven more and more by marketing. Telephones were redesigned -- probably nothing contributed more to the rise of "recreational telephoning" than the introduction in the early fifties of the flat-backed handset that could easily be cradled on one's shoulder. The Bell System began to promote multiple extensions, and phones in "decorator colors" and generally began doing everything it could to convince Americans that there was nothing wrong with using the phone as a substitute for face-to-face conversation. It was that campaign, during the fifties and sixties, that laid the foundation for what we see today -- and it was a change driven by a manufactured demand: the Boys From Marketing sold people on a concept they'd never really considered before, that the phone was more than something to use to order the groceries, that it was an essential component of their social lives. Before the war the phone had been a tool -- but now it was a lifestyle accessory.

Sound familiar? The same thing happened with cell phones. People were convinced by clever marketing that they couldn't survive without being able to call people from anywhere at any time for any length of time, and the whole cellular industry for the past twenty years has been built on promoting that belief. The Boys and Girls From Marketing have never done a more thorough job -- since even the most determinedly anti-marketing stick-it-to-the-man rebels of today are convinced they can't live without being in instant touch. There's a lesson there if we want to see it.

 

[Pompidou]

On the other hand, considering they flocked to the idea the moment the tech was available, it's likely the culture was simply waiting for the chance, and if mobile technology arrived 80 years prior, culture would've followed suit. They certainly didn't resist on the real timeline. Perhaps golden era culture had been eagerly awaiting the opportunity to be just like we are today, but science wasn't ready?

 

[sheeplady]

You know, people survived without the INSTANT RESPONSE of cell phones for decades. They seem to have functioned quite well.

We are really far too trapped by our addiction to instant satisfaction.

I'd much rather have people learn manners than to force restrictions on them. I don't think it is reasonable to say that someone can't go to a movie the last couple months of a pregnancy or go to their child's play if they are on call.

I'm more of a live and let live type of person. As long as no one is bothering me, I'm not really inclined to take the ability away from others to use something that might be important to them in an emergency. I've really never seen anyone use a cell phone in a movie, unless they were shutting it off or putting it on vibrate in the beginning.

 

[LizzieMaine]

On the other hand, considering they flocked to the idea the moment the tech was available, it's likely the culture was simply waiting for the chance, and if mobile technology arrived 80 years prior, culture would've followed suit. They certainly didn't resist on the real timeline. Perhaps golden era culture had been eagerly awaiting the opportunity to be just like we are today, but science wasn't ready?

Well, again, the marketing barrage was necessary because the demand *wasn't* there yet -- it didn't exist until the marketing created it. The Bell System people wanted to lease people these new cheaper-to-manufacture, lighter-weight plastic-shelled phones, and had to first convince them that the ten-pound metal phones they already had were somehow obsolete. And then they had to convince them that they needed a phone in every room, that one wasn't enough. And to justify all this they had to convince them they needed to spend more time *on* the phone, when three generations had grown up thinking of the phone as something you used only when necessity demanded.

Even well into the '70s, most homes only had one telephone, located in the kitchen or living room, and every kid who grew up then knew the parental yell of "GET OFF THAT PHONE RIGHT NOW!" Even after twenty years of Bell System hard-sell the idea of "casual telephoning" still hadn't fully penetrated the national consciousness.

Those of us who were adults in the late '80s/early '90s remember clearly when cellphones were the insignia of the pretentious yuppie, and everybody made fun of them and swore they'd never go around with a phone glued to their ear. They didn't see the need. They didn't realize they *had* a need to be in constant communication at all times. And, really, they didn't *have* such a need -- until the cellphone companies convinced them that they did.

 

[Effingham]

Lizzie, I think I love you.

Basically, as I read your last two posts in this thread, I found myself nodding so hard I almost gave myself whiplash.

It really wasn't that long ago that when people really wanted to communicate something important, they'd write a letter.

When was the last time you wrote a letter? I have a pile of old letters my dad wrote home from WW2 to my mom. She saved them. You can't do that with texts, phone calls, and (more or less), e-mails.

We're losing a lot of "history" here.


Tony

 

[LaMedicine]

I actually went so far as to investigate private cell phone signal blockers; unfortunately illegal, in my understanding

What I am talking about is not a personal one--I think personal ones are illegal here, too--but devices that block reception in certain enclosed areas such as the room/hall where the screen/stage are actually located, and is in the best interest of all parties--the performers/presenters as well as the audience-- that the program is uninterrupted. Reception is possible in the lobbies of such places, and there's also an announcement at the entrance of the halls that it's a non-reception area.
Where public transportation is concerned, the rule here is to turn off the phone near designated disability seats, plus silent mode in other areas, and no vocal communication. Of course, some do talk on the phones, but the conversation is always short and to the point, and usually, it's a "Sorry I'm on a train right now near A station, I'll call you back when I arrive at B station." I've had to talk to some length a couple of times due to emergency contact from my hospital, but in such cases, I cover my mouth and mouthpiece with my hand, and get off at the next stop, if I have enough time to take the next train.
We've got those people with *music* leaking out of earphones, and it was pretty bad in the past, but recently, it seems to have become more the exception than the rule.

Lizzie's post reminded me of a TV commercial for cell phones aired here several years ago. It used a scene from a sci-fi anime that was popular in my teen years--the hero talking into his wrist unit with airborne cars whizzing around-- and then the scene changes to the particular cell phone model being advertised. It was then that I realised that cell phones were the equivalent of the walkie-talkies in sci-fi stories in my childhood.

Cell phones are only tools, and it can be convenient (as it is in my case, since I can go out anywhere without having to leave the hospital my contact info--where I'll be, how to contact me in cases of emergencies--every time) , or it can be the bane of our society.
The point is, how the user views it, and how wisely they use it, and not be used/controlled by them. Unfortunately, there seems to be more cases of being controlled by their cell phones, rather than the person controlling them. :eusa_doh:

 

[Diamondback]

Dude, don't mess with the Alamo, period. An ancestor died there, so this is a fast-track to pushing my Berserk Button. When I was there, I actually did tear a couple people new ones...

"This ain't Disneyland--men died here fighting for freedom. This is sacred ground, so show some respect!"--me, then

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Honestly, most of the time when a cell phone goes off in class, students are incredibly embarrassed.

I also question the wisdom of people who calls somebody who's in the middle of class. Unless it's a life-or-death emergency, I would never call somebody if I know them to be at work or school.

I'm in the process of making such a "policy trailer" for our theatre -- showing me acting out each obnoxious violation of protocol using vintage-era devices. The "No Phone Conversations" title will be followed by a shot of me pulling an upright telephone from under my jacket and yakking it up. For "No Text Messaging," I'll be banging away on a portable typewriter, for "No Portable Music Devices" I'll have a Philco cathedral radio in my lap, and for "No Outside Food and Drink" I'll ostentatiously pour myself a bowl of cornflakes and milk and munch away on it.

That would be so funny! If you do, please post it.

 

[sheeplady]

I also question the wisdom of people who calls somebody who's in the middle of class. Unless it's a life-or-death emergency, I would never call somebody if I know them to be at work or school.

We have a lot of "non-traditional students" so we offer classes at weird times, many of them once a week. Our campus has students in physical class from 6:45AM until 10:00 or 10:30PM. (I can't remember- I normally teach mornings). We also have a lot of international students from halfway across the globe, and their friends and family back home sometimes accidently confuse what time it is here, or so I have been told.

It's pretty rare, and I've never had a student ever be rude about it. Although, the last one that went off I started dancing to the ringtone. I think that probably added to the cellphone shaming. Crazy dancing and everybody staring at you as you struggle to find your phone tends to make a person remember to shut their phone off before the next class.

It really doesn't bother me, it is rare enough that I know it is an accident, and not being done on purpose to be disrespectful to their classmates. If I thought it was being done in a disrespectful way (particularly towards others in the class) I'd have a huge problem with it.

 

[Pompidou]

Lizzie, I think I love you.

Basically, as I read your last two posts in this thread, I found myself nodding so hard I almost gave myself whiplash.

It really wasn't that long ago that when people really wanted to communicate something important, they'd write a letter.

When was the last time you wrote a letter? I have a pile of old letters my dad wrote home from WW2 to my mom. She saved them. You can't do that with texts, phone calls, and (more or less), e-mails.

We're losing a lot of "history" here.


Tony

All isn't lost. The good thing about cellphones is, their production runs parallel to that of pens and paper, rather than replacing it - simply two branches in the tree of communication. When people really want to communicate something important, they can still write a letter. The argument against cellphones based on need seems a lot like the arguments against pretty much every other new technology. Why, my own household, even myself - we used the same arguments. It wasn't till the first iPhone came out that I stopped saying, "If I'm not home to take a phone call, it means I'm busy and don't want to talk." I told my boss, "If I get a cell phone, it'll be a lot harder to miss the calls when work wants me to come in. That would be awkward after a while." Then, I got a cell phone. I got it more for the internet browser and other goodies smartphones have to offer, but now it's all about the phone and text messages.

My household had similar arguments when deciding to A: Get a computer (an Apple II GS at the time with debates at every upgrade), B: Connect to the Internet (with debates at every upgrade), and even C: Get a microwave (that was almost 25 years ago), but who needs a microwave when an oven can get the job done? It's never, or shouldn't ever be, about need. It's just about filling a convenience you might not have known you'd like.

Didn't the invention of the automobile and its eventual popularity meet similar resistance from users of the horse and buggy? It certainly required the invention of a whole new code of etiquette that had to be fleshed out from experience. I think cell phones are doing that today. Now, the results might not be what time-tested, traditional values might endorse, but they'll codify, nonetheless. There's a tug of war match going on between all the new things we can do these days, and those hoping to preserve the status quot. For better or worse, the wise gambler doesn't bet on the latter.