[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 5/20/2012 11:20 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:06:06 -0400, >
> wrote:
>>
>> It is inconsiderate to assume the intended recipient has a text plan
>> and/or is interested.
>
> I don't think it's inconsiderate at all. Only us geezers turn off
> text messaging.
>

Don't agree at all. Basic manners say you don't do anything to anyone
without getting their consent. It is even more inconsiderate when it
causes a monetary expense to that person.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 20/05/2012 11:24 AM, sf wrote:

>> I have never done it and I don't plan to. The other day I was in a
>> restaurant with my son while we were waiting for a friend of his who was
>> coming down to pick him up. We got a text from the friend asking for
>> directions. We were unable to figure out where he wanted directions from.
>
> Nobody texted back to ask from where? When it's a vague request like
> that, they usually just want the cross streets; not turn by turn
> directions. I'm surprised he didn't use the GPS navigation part of
> his smartphone to get directions... or google maps at the very least.
>


We were a little surprised because it is a small city and the restaurant
is on the main street.... and he had been to it before. AAMOF, it is
owned by friends of the parents of the girl who he had been to a lawyer
about getting rid of just that morning. Considering that he is
directionally challenged and in the advertising business and spends a
lot of his work day driving around, I am surprised that he doesn't have
GPS.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 20/05/2012 11:25 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-05-20, Dave > wrote:
>
>> How about a text ...."Stuck in traffic due to accident caused by some
>> asshole texting while driving".
>
> heh heh....
>
> I couldn't txt without pulling over, putting on reading glasses, and
> looking at every sgl ltr I typ ....twice! ;)
>
>
You may be surprised at the number of people I see texting while
driving. It is illegal here, along with using a cell phone that is not
hands free. I almost which they would revoke that law because if people
on texting while driving I think I would prefer that they do it with the
device above the steering wheel so they might be able to catch some
peripheral view through the windshield than holding it down low where
they think other people won't know what they are doing.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 5/20/2012 11:28 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:05:34 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 20/05/2012 11:03 AM, George wrote:
>>
>>>> I have never done it and I don't plan to. The other day I was in a
>>>> restaurant with my son while we were waiting for a friend of his who was
>>>> coming down to pick him up. We got a text from the friend asking for
>>>> directions. We were unable to figure out where he wanted directions from.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately some people don't consider what the proper tool might be.
>>> A "Stuck in traffic, will be 10 minutes late" text is helpful and a
>>> timesaver. But trying to describe something in text messages that can be
>>> solved with a 2 minute call is a waste of everyone's time.
>>
>>
>> How about a text ...."Stuck in traffic due to accident caused by some
>> asshole texting while driving".
>
> Our problem on Friday was a furniture truck (I didn't notice if they
> were delivering or someone was moving - but no matter what, they
> shouldn't have been there at that time of day) that blocked a lane of
> traffic on a main thoroughfare during rush hour. It literally doubled
> the time it should have taken to cross town. Where's a cop when you
> need one?
>

When are businesses supposed to deliver stuff? At 3 AM every 4th Tuesday?

I think you will find most motor vehicle codes reasonably allow for
delivery vehicles to block a street in a residential or business
district for a reasonable time.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 5/20/2012 11:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 20/05/2012 11:03 AM, George wrote:
>
>>> I have never done it and I don't plan to. The other day I was in a
>>> restaurant with my son while we were waiting for a friend of his who was
>>> coming down to pick him up. We got a text from the friend asking for
>>> directions. We were unable to figure out where he wanted directions
>>> from.
>>
>> Unfortunately some people don't consider what the proper tool might be.
>> A "Stuck in traffic, will be 10 minutes late" text is helpful and a
>> timesaver. But trying to describe something in text messages that can be
>> solved with a 2 minute call is a waste of everyone's time.
>
>
> How about a text ...."Stuck in traffic due to accident caused by some
> asshole texting while driving".

Well not everyone is an idiot. If you are stopped at a traffic signal or
literally parked on a highway waiting for say a beam to be placed on a
bridge so they closed the road for a short time there isn't much than
can go wrong.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 2012-05-20, Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
> You may be surprised at the number of people I see texting while
> driving. It is illegal here, along with using a cell phone that is not
> hands free. I almost which they would revoke that law because if people
> on texting while driving I think I would prefer that they do it with the
> device above the steering wheel so they might be able to catch some
> peripheral view through the windshield than holding it down low where
> they think other people won't know what they are doing.

The whole premise is ludicrous.

People have been talking on CBs, ham radios, 2-way radios for decades.
There is no restriction on them. I was once a firefighter, talking
and driving a firetruck simultaneously. We received no special
training. Also, the newer cars have more interactive devices and
gadgets requiring the driver push a button or whatever than ever
before. The whole body of law aimed at restricting cell-phone use is
nothing more than pointless political posturing, cellphone use being no
more distracting than talking to a passenger, reaching for that cuppa
joe, or changing a CD in the car stereo.

nb

-- vi --the heart of evil! Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 5/20/2012 12:53 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 20/05/2012 11:24 AM, sf wrote:
>
>>> I have never done it and I don't plan to. The other day I was in a
>>> restaurant with my son while we were waiting for a friend of his who was
>>> coming down to pick him up. We got a text from the friend asking for
>>> directions. We were unable to figure out where he wanted directions
>>> from.
>>
>> Nobody texted back to ask from where? When it's a vague request like
>> that, they usually just want the cross streets; not turn by turn
>> directions. I'm surprised he didn't use the GPS navigation part of
>> his smartphone to get directions... or google maps at the very least.
>>
>
>
> We were a little surprised because it is a small city and the restaurant
> is on the main street.... and he had been to it before. AAMOF, it is
> owned by friends of the parents of the girl who he had been to a lawyer
> about getting rid of just that morning. Considering that he is
> directionally challenged and in the advertising business and spends a
> lot of his work day driving around, I am surprised that he doesn't have
> GPS.

Even a GPS can be less than helpful. I was recently working at a
location where I was to meet someone driving in from another state. We
have an e911 mandate where all places must have a physical address. The
place I was at used to be PO Box 999, Brownville . After e911 it is 602
Spring Valley Turnpike. If you don't have a current database in your GPS
that address will send you about 10 miles north. So I got a call from a
puzzled person asking why they couldn't find the large facility where
they were going to meet me.

I recently got caught for something similar. A "typical" consumer GPS
doesn't know actual street locations. It simply divides the road up into
uniform segments based on the numbering and gives a best guess. That
works fine in a dense area. I was in a semi rural area. The GPS brought
me to an area but the facility I was going to was nowhere to be found.
Turns out the road had been bisected many years ago when they put the
turnpike in. I had to drive almost 20 miles to get on the same named
road on the other side of the turnpike.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 20 May 2012 17:13:16 GMT, notbob > wrote:



>
> The whole body of law aimed at restricting cell-phone use is
>nothing more than pointless political posturing, cellphone use being no
>more distracting than talking to a passenger, reaching for that cuppa
>joe, or changing a CD in the car stereo.
>
>nb

I'd agree with you if you were right, but it has been well documented.
There is a difference between some conversation amongst driver and
passenger and some phone calls.

May not be so bad when (like I do) call home to see what is for dinner
and perhaps taking an order from a customer of giving tech support
about a machine, etc.

If traffic demands your attention, you won't reach for that coffee,
but it you are deep into a conversation of a serious nature, you may
never see that traffic situation until too late.

You may not see the difference, but it exists.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 2012-05-20, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> I'd agree with you if you were right, but it has been well documented.

What has been documented is accidents that have already occurred and
based on sketchy eyewitness data or data compiled by media or pols
with an agenda. Good lord, ham radio hobbyists have been talking on 2
meter cellphone-sized radios for at least 3-1/2 decades that I'm aware
of. Likewise, where was the hue and cry over CB radios when they were
all the rage? Please explain how holding a push-buttom microphone to
one's mouth is less distracting than holding a cell-phone to one's
ear. Hell, I've seen ppl reading books while commuting, the book on
the seat beside them!!

If you are impaired, you have my sympathy. Don't do it. I already
admitted I can't text while driving. I don't know the keys well
enough, but I've no doubt there are millions of younger ppl who have
little or no problem. What's next? Outlaw chewing gum or picking yer
nose while driving?

nb


--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:38:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:20:28 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:06:06 -0400, George >
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> It is inconsiderate to assume the intended recipient has a text plan
> >> and/or is interested.
> >
> >I don't think it's inconsiderate at all. Only us geezers turn off
> >text messaging.
>
> BS., why should I pay 20¢ to get an advertisement or other unwanted
> text? I don't have texting and never will because it is cheaper to
> pay by the message when you send one or two a month.

What do you mean "send by the message"? When it's off, it's off.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 5/20/2012 11:20 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:06:06 -0400, >
> wrote:
>>
>> It is inconsiderate to assume the intended recipient has a text plan
>> and/or is interested.
>
> I don't think it's inconsiderate at all. Only us geezers turn off
> text messaging.
>
I don't turn off texting - I use that more than voice calls. My aunts
and uncles text, too - and they're farther into geezerhood than I am!

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:48:46 -0400, George >
wrote:

> On 5/20/2012 11:20 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:06:06 -0400, >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It is inconsiderate to assume the intended recipient has a text plan
> >> and/or is interested.
> >
> > I don't think it's inconsiderate at all. Only us geezers turn off
> > text messaging.
> >
>
> Don't agree at all. Basic manners say you don't do anything to anyone
> without getting their consent. It is even more inconsiderate when it
> causes a monetary expense to that person.

Most of the younger people pay for unlimited texting and don't
complain about it like we do.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 13:09:51 -0400, George >
wrote:

> I think you will find most motor vehicle codes reasonably allow for
> delivery vehicles to block a street in a residential or business
> district for a reasonable time.

This was during rush hour, there's a difference.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 14:46:56 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:

> On 5/20/2012 11:20 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:06:06 -0400, >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It is inconsiderate to assume the intended recipient has a text plan
> >> and/or is interested.
> >
> > I don't think it's inconsiderate at all. Only us geezers turn off
> > text messaging.
> >
> I don't turn off texting - I use that more than voice calls. My aunts
> and uncles text, too - and they're farther into geezerhood than I am!

I didn't say *all* geezers turn it off. Some are rather tech savvy.
Those who grouch and harp about paying per message are too cheap to
pay the $10 for unlimited texting.... so they turn it off.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 20 May 2012 18:04:07 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2012-05-20, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> I'd agree with you if you were right, but it has been well documented.
>
>What has been documented is accidents that have already occurred and
>based on sketchy eyewitness data or data compiled by media or pols
>with an agenda.

Or the 16 yo girl here in CT that is about to be sentenced. She was
texting and hit and killed a pedestrian.


> Good lord, ham radio hobbyists have been talking on 2
>meter cellphone-sized radios for at least 3-1/2 decades that I'm aware
>of. Likewise, where was the hue and cry over CB radios when they were
>all the rage? Please explain how holding a push-buttom microphone to
>one's mouth is less distracting than holding a cell-phone to one's
>ear. Hell, I've seen ppl reading books while commuting, the book on
>the seat beside them!!


I did explain. You don't see the difference. It is not just the
call, but the type of call that can make a difference.


>
>If you are impaired, you have my sympathy. Don't do it.

Everyone is impaired a bit. Again, the degree depends on a multitude
of factors.

> I already
>admitted I can't text while driving. I don't know the keys well
>enough, but I've no doubt there are millions of younger ppl who have
>little or no problem.

See above about how well teenager do it.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 2012-05-20, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Everyone is impaired a bit. Again, the degree depends on a multitude
> of factors.

Like how stupid a cellphone user is?

I can drop a cellphone as quickly as a CB mic, specially as I consider
most phone calls an annoyance. I suspect the one's who can't drive
and phone at the same time are those types that live to talk on the
phone, regardless of type.

Sure, I can talk on the phone. About twice a month I get a buzz going
and call someone I haven't talked to for some time, but this via my
land line sitting on my couch. Quite frankly, I have no desire to talk
to anyone while I'm driving. Even when I spent 1-2 hrs a day
commuting, I considered my car my refuge, not a place to talk to
other s from.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 20 May 2012 21:18:20 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2012-05-20, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Everyone is impaired a bit. Again, the degree depends on a multitude
>> of factors.
>
>Like how stupid a cellphone user is?
>
>I can drop a cellphone as quickly as a CB mic, specially as I consider
>most phone calls an annoyance. I suspect the one's who can't drive
>and phone at the same time are those types that live to talk on the
>phone, regardless of type.


Maybe you can, but most others cannot. Thus the law against it.
Social conversations may not be so bad, but people can get so
engrossed in the conversation, they lose sight of where they are. I've
witnessed it, I've seen instances with accidents.

Other distractions are just as bad, but there are less of them than
the rise in phone use. Many states do have distracted driver laws,
and for good reason.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:50:34 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:48:46 -0400, George >
>wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2012 11:20 AM, sf wrote:
>> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:06:06 -0400, >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It is inconsiderate to assume the intended recipient has a text plan
>> >> and/or is interested.
>> >
>> > I don't think it's inconsiderate at all. Only us geezers turn off
>> > text messaging.
>> >
>>
>> Don't agree at all. Basic manners say you don't do anything to anyone
>> without getting their consent. It is even more inconsiderate when it
>> causes a monetary expense to that person.
>
>Most of the younger people pay for unlimited texting and don't
>complain about it like we do.

Unlimited texting is about $10 a month. In my case, and many others,
it would be a $10 solution to a 20¢ problem.

I don't want unsolicited calls or texts or faxes that cost me money to
receive.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 13:31:10 -0400, George >
wrote:

>
>Even a GPS can be less than helpful. I was recently working at a
>location where I was to meet someone driving in from another state. We
>have an e911 mandate where all places must have a physical address. The
>place I was at used to be PO Box 999, Brownville . After e911 it is 602
>Spring Valley Turnpike. If you don't have a current database in your GPS
>that address will send you about 10 miles north. So I got a call from a
>puzzled person asking why they couldn't find the large facility where
>they were going to meet me.
>
>I recently got caught for something similar. A "typical" consumer GPS
>doesn't know actual street locations. It simply divides the road up into
>uniform segments based on the numbering and gives a best guess. That
>works fine in a dense area. I was in a semi rural area. The GPS brought
>me to an area but the facility I was going to was nowhere to be found.
>Turns out the road had been bisected many years ago when they put the
>turnpike in. I had to drive almost 20 miles to get on the same named
>road on the other side of the turnpike.


A couple of weeks ago we were in SC. I used the GPS to get me to a
place about 70 miles away. It worked well until we were almost there.
At an intersection, it told me to turn right and go to a location
about 1/4 mile down the road. It was at a junkyard, not a
restaurant.

I backtracked and found the restaurant about 50 to the left of that
intersection. That was Scott's bbq that I posted pics of last week.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 5/20/2012 4:03 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 20 May 2012 18:04:07 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> On 2012-05-20, Ed > wrote:
>>
>>> I'd agree with you if you were right, but it has been well documented.
>>
>> What has been documented is accidents that have already occurred and
>> based on sketchy eyewitness data or data compiled by media or pols
>> with an agenda.
>
> Or the 16 yo girl here in CT that is about to be sentenced. She was
> texting and hit and killed a pedestrian.
>
Happened here in MD not too long ago, too. Caused by texting and
driving. Hell, people are known to walk into street signs and water
fountains by texting and walking. At least they're only hurting themselves.


I've seen a woman sit through a left hand turn light until it turned red
again because she was texting and not paying attention. She was next to
me and I was going straight so I just sat there laughing at her while
her light was green and then she missed it. So texters driving wastes
people's time too if you're behind someone like that.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

Ed wrote:

>> I can drop a cellphone as quickly as a CB mic, specially as I consider
>> most phone calls an annoyance. I suspect the one's who can't drive
>> and phone at the same time are those types that live to talk on the
>> phone, regardless of type.
>
> Maybe you can, but most others cannot. Thus the law against it.
> Social conversations may not be so bad, but people can get so
> engrossed in the conversation, they lose sight of where they are. I've
> witnessed it, I've seen instances with accidents.
>
> Other distractions are just as bad, but there are less of them than
> the rise in phone use. Many states do have distracted driver laws,
> and for good reason.

As far as I can tell, distracted driver laws are only enforced *after*
an accident has occurred. I think the cell phone laws are based on an
irrational argument. I've said on many occasions that if distracted
driving were truly illegal, nobody could ever drive with children in the
vehicle. I think children represent a MUCH greater distraction than a
cell phone.

Bob

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 20/05/2012 5:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> I can drop a cellphone as quickly as a CB mic, specially as I consider
>> most phone calls an annoyance. I suspect the one's who can't drive
>> and phone at the same time are those types that live to talk on the
>> phone, regardless of type.
>
>
> Maybe you can, but most others cannot. Thus the law against it.
> Social conversations may not be so bad, but people can get so
> engrossed in the conversation, they lose sight of where they are. I've
> witnessed it, I've seen instances with accidents.
>
> Other distractions are just as bad, but there are less of them than
> the rise in phone use. Many states do have distracted driver laws,
> and for good reason.
>

For the last few years that I was working there were a lot of traffic
jams at the border (post 9/11). Our inspection station was about 2 miles
from the border and the outbound traffic was frequently backed up even
further. One day a pickup truck ran into the back of a tractor trailer
that was stopped at the end of the line. There were lots of mobile
warning signs alerting drivers to the back-ups and maybe the driver who
was killed would have been okay if he had been paying attention to the
traffic instead of talking on the cell phone. He buddy was still on the
line when the first person on the scene showed up up.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 20/05/2012 6:42 PM, Cheryl wrote:

>
> I've seen a woman sit through a left hand turn light until it turned red
> again because she was texting and not paying attention. She was next to
> me and I was going straight so I just sat there laughing at her while
> her light was green and then she missed it. So texters driving wastes
> people's time too if you're behind someone like that.

I am fast on the horn when behind anyone who doesn't move when the
light changes. Oh hell.,,, I will admit that I honk any time I see
drivers texting or talking in cell phones, and they are left wondering
what they did wrong. ;-)

OMG! I texted
 

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 20/05/2012 9:12 AM, notbob wrote:
>> On 2012-05-20, Dave > wrote:
>>
>>> cell phone month I might use 5 minutes of my time.
>>
>> Yep. I never even even carry it unless I go somewhere in the car. I've
>> probably used 5 mins in the last yr. No doubt the reason I have 5 hrs
>> of accumulated time. ;)
>
>
> I started carrying it more often after my heart scare. I take the dog
> for a nice long walk in the woods almost every day and figure that it
> would be courteous to give one last call to let them know where to ind
> my corpse. I also try to remember to take it when I go bicycling. You
> never know when there is going to be a mechanical breakdown and I might
> need a lift. I urge my wife to take it once in a while but she is not
> interested.
>

I understand. Just tonight I asked my daughter whether I should
bring the phone upstairs with me at night. My norm has been to
keep it downstairs, perhaps recharging, but mainly because I don't
want to hear it, etc. BUT this is probably not the wisest
practice, especially as we get older.

Of course, you have a tangible reason for having your phone with you.

--
Jean B.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:11:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:50:34 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >
> >Most of the younger people pay for unlimited texting and don't
> >complain about it like we do.
>
> Unlimited texting is about $10 a month. In my case, and many others,
> it would be a $10 solution to a 20¢ problem.
>
> I don't want unsolicited calls or texts or faxes that cost me money to
> receive.

You must give out your phone number like a business card if that
happens. We stopped the text feature because we got more texts from
the phone company (at no charge to us) telling us how wonderful
texting was than we got real texts. Our kids gave up texting us
because we never noticed their texts. It simply wasn't a feature that
interested us.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:06:06 -0400, George >
wrote:

>On 5/20/2012 1:41 AM, Lou Decruss wrote:>

>> We had our text thingie turned off. Neither of us have ever sent a
>> text but people kept sending them to us and we had no package. The
>> cost wasn't the issue. Between email, facebook, and usenet that's all
>> the typing I care to do.
>>
>> Lou
>
>It is inconsiderate to assume the intended recipient has a text plan
>and/or is interested.

Inconsiderate AND ignorant.

Lou

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 20:53:57 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:45:45 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:38:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> BS., why should I pay 20¢ to get an advertisement or other unwanted
>>> text? I don't have texting and never will because it is cheaper to
>>> pay by the message when you send one or two a month.
>>
>> What do you mean "send by the message"? When it's off, it's off.
>
>Brabara Llorente, the [hopefully retired] teacher strikes again. She
>specialized in English and reading comprehension.

I'm surprised she managed to get past 6th grade.

Lou

OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:44:07 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>
>> I urge my wife to take it once in a while but she is not
>> interested.
>>
>
>I understand. Just tonight I asked my daughter whether I should
>bring the phone upstairs with me at night. My norm has been to
>keep it downstairs, perhaps recharging, but mainly because I don't
>want to hear it, etc. BUT this is probably not the wisest
>practice, especially as we get older.
>
>Of course, you have a tangible reason for having your phone with you.

Same reason my wife has one. Broker her ankle on the way to the
mailbox and had to wait and hope a passing car would see her. If you
have any health concerns, it is cheap insurance to carry a phone.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Sun, 20 May 2012 21:42:14 -0700, sf > wrote:



>
>You must give out your phone number like a business card if that
>happens.

That is why it ****es me off. I never give out my number. It is not
hard for a sleazy marketing company to get the numbers though. Or to
use a programmed dialer.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 5/21/2012 12:42 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:11:45 -0400, Ed > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:50:34 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Most of the younger people pay for unlimited texting and don't
>>> complain about it like we do.
>>
>> Unlimited texting is about $10 a month. In my case, and many others,
>> it would be a $10 solution to a 20¢ problem.
>>
>> I don't want unsolicited calls or texts or faxes that cost me money to
>> receive.
>
> You must give out your phone number like a business card if that
> happens. We stopped the text feature because we got more texts from
> the phone company (at no charge to us) telling us how wonderful
> texting was than we got real texts. Our kids gave up texting us
> because we never noticed their texts. It simply wasn't a feature that
> interested us.
>

Cell phone numbers exist in known blocks. The SPAMers simply program
their equipment to walk through each block of numbers.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 5/21/2012 5:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 21:42:14 -0700, > wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> You must give out your phone number like a business card if that
>> happens.
>
> That is why it ****es me off. I never give out my number. It is not
> hard for a sleazy marketing company to get the numbers though. Or to
> use a programmed dialer.

The SPAMers are never going to go away unless it starts costing real
money to them instead of the recipient to send their SPAM.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 5/20/2012 6:42 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 5/20/2012 4:03 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 20 May 2012 18:04:07 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-05-20, Ed > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd agree with you if you were right, but it has been well documented.
>>>
>>> What has been documented is accidents that have already occurred and
>>> based on sketchy eyewitness data or data compiled by media or pols
>>> with an agenda.
>>
>> Or the 16 yo girl here in CT that is about to be sentenced. She was
>> texting and hit and killed a pedestrian.
>>
> Happened here in MD not too long ago, too. Caused by texting and
> driving. Hell, people are known to walk into street signs and water
> fountains by texting and walking. At least they're only hurting themselves.
>
>

My favorite is when someone is texting or doing something "important" on
facebook and then walk right into you and then get mad at you.


> I've seen a woman sit through a left hand turn light until it turned red
> again because she was texting and not paying attention. She was next to
> me and I was going straight so I just sat there laughing at her while
> her light was green and then she missed it. So texters driving wastes
> people's time too if you're behind someone like that.

OMG! I texted
 

On 21/05/2012 5:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> Of course, you have a tangible reason for having your phone with you.
>
> Same reason my wife has one. Broker her ankle on the way to the
> mailbox and had to wait and hope a passing car would see her. If you
> have any health concerns, it is cheap insurance to carry a phone.

That's the main reason I use mine. I found out the hard way that you can
have a serious, life threatening condition and be unaware of it. I carry
mine in case I have to call for help. It is also handy if I am out
shopping and need to call home to check on something. Pay phones are no
longer a dime, and they are few and far between.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 21/05/2012 9:11 AM, George wrote:

>
> My favorite is when someone is texting or doing something "important" on
> facebook and then walk right into you and then get mad at you.
>
>
Similar thing happened to me a couple years ago, except she was talking
on her cell phone. I was walking through a mall. There were some cars on
display, PT cruisers, so on the high side. I saw walking along talking
on the phone, I guess I didn't see her spin around and come scooting
back. She ran into me and got spun around and the cell phone went flying
out of her hand. Apparently it was my fault that she wasn't watching
where she was going and ran into me. Needless to say, the self centred
clod did not apologize for running into me.

OMG! I texted
 

On 5/21/2012 9:53 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 21/05/2012 5:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>> Of course, you have a tangible reason for having your phone with you.
>>
>> Same reason my wife has one. Broker her ankle on the way to the
>> mailbox and had to wait and hope a passing car would see her. If you
>> have any health concerns, it is cheap insurance to carry a phone.
>
> That's the main reason I use mine. I found out the hard way that you can
> have a serious, life threatening condition and be unaware of it. I carry
> mine in case I have to call for help. It is also handy if I am out
> shopping and need to call home to check on something. Pay phones are no
> longer a dime, and they are few and far between.

This has to be at least 5 years ago. The display on my phone went funky.
I planned to get it replaced later that morning. I was out and needed to
make a local call. I found a pay phone and it told me I needed to
deposit something like $1.85 to make a local call. Now it is unusual to
even see a pay phone.

And everyone is focusing on texting. Sometimes it is really handy to be
able to send a picture of something to someone else (picture is worth a
thousand words).

OMG! I texted
 

On 21/05/2012 10:04 AM, George wrote:

> This has to be at least 5 years ago. The display on my phone went funky.
> I planned to get it replaced later that morning. I was out and needed to
> make a local call. I found a pay phone and it told me I needed to
> deposit something like $1.85 to make a local call. Now it is unusual to
> even see a pay phone.
>
> And everyone is focusing on texting. Sometimes it is really handy to be
> able to send a picture of something to someone else (picture is worth a
> thousand words).

We are? The OP was about texting. It evolved into texting while driving.
No doubt it can be handy to send a photo to someone, but there are
people who are hung up on texting. They send dozens, sometimes hundreds
of them every day.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Mon, 21 May 2012 05:58:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2012 21:42:14 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >You must give out your phone number like a business card if that
> >happens.
>
> That is why it ****es me off. I never give out my number. It is not
> hard for a sleazy marketing company to get the numbers though. Or to
> use a programmed dialer.

Yeah, that's an option. I never get that on my cell phone, but hubby
gets it on his because it has history as his business phone and I also
think he puts it down when asked for a number.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:08:12 -0400, George >
wrote:

> On 5/21/2012 5:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 May 2012 21:42:14 -0700, > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You must give out your phone number like a business card if that
> >> happens.
> >
> > That is why it ****es me off. I never give out my number. It is not
> > hard for a sleazy marketing company to get the numbers though. Or to
> > use a programmed dialer.
>
> The SPAMers are never going to go away unless it starts costing real
> money to them instead of the recipient to send their SPAM.

I agree.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

On 5/22/2012 2:03 AM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:08:12 -0400, >
> wrote:
>> On 5/21/2012 5:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 21:42:14 -0700, > wrote:
>>>> You must give out your phone number like a business card if that
>>>> happens.
>>>
>>> That is why it ****es me off. I never give out my number. It is not
>>> hard for a sleazy marketing company to get the numbers though. Or to
>>> use a programmed dialer.
>>
>> The SPAMers are never going to go away unless it starts costing real
>> money to them instead of the recipient to send their SPAM.
>
> I agree.
>
That's one of the things I like about the European system -
caller/texter pays, not the recipient. Cell/mobile numbers don't have
the same area codes as landlines.

[OT] OMG! I texted
 

S Viemeister wrote:
> sf wrote:
>> > wrote:
>
>>> The SPAMers are never going to go away unless it starts costing real
>>> money to them instead of the recipient to send their SPAM.
>
>> I agree.
>
> That's one of the things I like about the European system -
> caller/texter pays, not the recipient. Cell/mobile numbers don't have
> the same area codes as landlines.

That's one way I preferred land lines over mobile - The caller always
paid the receiver never paid. Mobile plans should be like that,
including texting.

That's also why junk paper mail has always been limited. The sender
pays the stamp. If sending an email cost a cent the amount of spam
would be vastly lower. There is no way to enforce that in the current
email system.