Seriously people. You aren't a doctor, EMT, or Special Agent.
I've been on hurricane duty for months at a time, literally expected to be reached at any time during hurricane season to go start prepping.
I've been the point of contact for multiple people to contact during any possible emergency they might have, again, for months (well over a year actually) at a time.
You're incredibly narrow view is a bad one for basing policy on.
It would be awesome if these immature fucksticks would get over their oh so important sense of self and turn off their mobiles, but in the absense of this it is a damn shame that blocking the signal is the only way that these arrogant pricks will stop.
Considering you seem to feel so strongly about this it's a shame you haven't actually asked those people to stop.
Stop using people on call as an excuse for this behaviour, noone is pissed off if you go to the bathroom and noone is pissed if a doctor suddenly has an emergency. People are pissed about texting parties going on right under their nose in a darkened room and jackasses making the theatre experience shitty just because they can. This has been reiterated several times.
People are saying doctors should be given leeway to quickly and discreetly check the occasional text, not sit in the theater and chat. It's being used as an argument against jamming cellphones entirely (passively or actively), not as an excuse for the other dumb fuckers.
We're saying the same thing. Doctor emergencies and the like are ok, being a jackass in the cinema is not. Quid took my meaning completely wrong too. I'm responding to the guys who come in every few pages of this thread who tell us we're oversensitive and accuse us of getting pissed off when someone has to go to the bathroom as a strawman. We're on the same page in general, i wasn't responding to the jammer conversation at all and I'm not advocating the use of such.
Seriously people. You aren't a doctor, EMT, or Special Agent.
I've been on hurricane duty for months at a time, literally expected to be reached at any time during hurricane season to go start prepping.
I've been the point of contact for multiple people to contact during any possible emergency they might have, again, for months (well over a year actually) at a time.
You're incredibly narrow view is a bad one for basing policy on.
OK, I didn't realize you were part of the secret government program that controls the weather machines that stop hurricanes, but that doesn't change the fact that you are an outlier, not the norm.
Your personal set of circumstances is a worse thing to base broad policies on, and by and large, the policy has been agreed upon and it has been decided and dictated from the giant screen before the feature that you shouldn't text during the movie.
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
It would be awesome if these immature fucksticks would get over their oh so important sense of self and turn off their mobiles, but in the absense of this it is a damn shame that blocking the signal is the only way that these arrogant pricks will stop.
Considering you seem to feel so strongly about this it's a shame you haven't actually asked those people to stop.
I hear that's an option too.
Are you trying to be clever? Guess what Scooter, I have told people to stop, but near as I can tell I'm not being paid by Sony or Regal to work as a volunteer usher. I'm not walking around the theatre telling all 5 - 10 jackasses that think falsely believe they're important that they aren't.
I find your opinion on this selfish and arrogant. It seems you think your right to a minor annoyance-free experience trumps the needs of a surprising number of people that actually do need to be able to be contacted at all times. just because you dont realize that people need to be in contact doesnt mean that they dont.
Seriously people. You aren't a doctor, EMT, or Special Agent.
I've been on hurricane duty for months at a time, literally expected to be reached at any time during hurricane season to go start prepping.
I've been the point of contact for multiple people to contact during any possible emergency they might have, again, for months (well over a year actually) at a time.
You're incredibly narrow view is a bad one for basing policy on.
OK, I didn't realize you were part of the secret government program that controls the weather machines that stop hurricanes, but that doesn't change the fact that you are an outlier, not the norm.
Your personal set of circumstances is a worse thing to base broad policies on, and by and large, the policy has been agreed upon and it has been decided and dictated from the giant screen before the feature that you shouldn't text during the movie.
There are enough medical personnel in the US to insure that there is at least one in every audience. Hell, some theaters require it. Comparing their need to respond to an emergency to the possibility that the person who forgot to turn off his phone will be sitting near you shown untold levels of narcissism.
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited December 2009
So Doctors on call, Volunteer Firefighters, Senior IT / infrastructure management types, and people expecting a child should never ever go to the movies, ever.
Gotcha.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
I never got the impression that people were saying that anyone whose phone makes any kind of noise should be shot on sight. If someone's phone goes off and they quiet it quickly/leave the theater to answer it, I have zero problem with them. I imagine that emergency personnel on call would do so.
People's problems are with in-theater texting and phone conversation, which are on-going distractions that could easily take place outside the theater.
I never got the impression that people were saying that anyone whose phone makes any kind of noise should be shot on sight. If someone's phone goes off and they quiet it quickly/leave the theater to answer it, I have zero problem with them. I imagine that emergency personnel on call would do so.
People's problems are with in-theater texting and phone conversation, which are on-going distractions that could easily take place outside the theater.
The discussion has moved into the hardliners demanding that theaters block all cellphone signals and people are going back and forth with that. But honestly at this point its hard to tell if we are just getting trolled or not.
The discussion has moved into the hardliners demanding that theaters block all cellphone signals and people are going back and forth with that. But honestly at this point its hard to tell if we are just getting trolled or not.
Any sufficiently advanced lack of reading the thread is indestinguishable from trolling.
This would explain why the same arguments are being repeated from the first few pages several days and 15+ pages later.
The whole "on call" situation really comes up more than it deserves. If you're on call, and you get a text, and you check your text for a few seconds, that's not a big deal. If you get up and rush out of the theatre because you need to perform emergency surgery or other vital tasks, that is equally acceptable. If you clickclickclickclick away for five minutes, you're probably just being a douchebag 'cause it's clearly not that important.
People need to stop trying to hold up the exception as the standard. For every doctor, dentist, or IT professional that may or may not receive a mission critically time sensitive message during the next 90-150 minutes, there are probably hundreds or thousands of inconsiderate assholes who are just texting because they're bored, or are unaware that they're being douchebags, or are aware and just don't care. Nobody here is arguing against the exception. If I ever see someone rush out of a theater after a text, I'll salute them for being the brave souls they are, but in over a decade of cell phones being commonplace, you know how many times I can recall seeing someone get up and leave after I've noticed them texting? Zero. None. Never. Not once, and I've been to a LOT of movies over those years. I just threw out my collection of movie stubs earlier this year while cleaning my apartment, and there were hundreds of the damned things, and that didn't even represent all of them.
Are there valid reasons for having your phone on vibrate and needing to check your phone should a message come in? Sure.
Are these likely to be the vastly shocking minority? Probably.
Should someone's reaction indicate that an important event has occurred, is this behaviour acceptable? Of course.
But if they sit there texting on their iphone set to "FUCKING BLINDING" for five minutes, it's pretty unlikely that they're fighting a life or death struggle in their seat.
Let's try to keep from propping up the rare exception as though it's a common and valid explination for the generally civil complaints being levelled by some in the thread.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I find your opinion on this selfish and arrogant. It seems you think your right to a minor annoyance-free experience trumps the needs of a surprising number of people that actually do need to be able to be contacted at all times. just because you dont realize that people need to be in contact doesnt mean that they dont.
And I think you're extremely gullible if you believe that most people constantly checking their phones are sending texts vital to society and their livelihood as opposed to being inconsiderate pricks.
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
The discussion has moved into the hardliners demanding that theaters block all cellphone signals and people are going back and forth with that. But honestly at this point its hard to tell if we are just getting trolled or not.
Any sufficiently advanced lack of reading the thread is indestinguishable from trolling.
This would explain why the same arguments are being repeated from the first few pages several days and 15+ pages later.
The whole "on call" situation really comes up more than it deserves. If you're on call, and you get a text, and you check your text for a few seconds, that's not a big deal. If you get up and rush out of the theatre because you need to perform emergency surgery or other vital tasks, that is equally acceptable. If you clickclickclickclick away for five minutes, you're probably just being a douchebag 'cause it's clearly not that important.
People need to stop trying to hold up the exception as the standard. For every doctor, dentist, or IT professional that may or may not receive a mission critically time sensitive message during the next 90-150 minutes, there are probably hundreds or thousands of inconsiderate assholes who are just texting because they're bored, or their unaware that they're being douchebags, or are aware and just don't care. Nobody here is arguing against the exception. If I ever see someone rush out of a theater after a text, I'll salute them for being the brave souls they are, but in over a decade of cell phones being commonplace, you know how many times I can recall seeing someone get up and leave after I've noticed them texting? Zero. None. Never. Not once, and I've been to a LOT of movies over those years. I just threw out my collection of movie stubs earlier this year while cleaning my apartment, and there were hundreds of the damned things, and that didn't even represent all of them.
Are there valid reasons for having your phone on vibrate and needing to check your phone should a message come in? Sure.
Are these likely to be the vastly shocking minority? Probably.
Should someone's reaction indicate that an important event has occurred, is this behaviour acceptable? Of course.
But if they sit there texting on their iphone set to "FUCKING BLINDING" for five minutes, it's pretty unlikely that they're fighting a life or death struggle in their seat.
Let's try to keep from propping up the rare exception as though it's a common and valid explination for the generally civil complaints being levelled by some in the thread.
I now realize that anyone that doesn't understand this now, will never understand it.
Deebaser on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited December 2009
Right. But because of those 1 for every couple hundred active asshole texters, we cannot do anything rash like block cell signal into the theater without closing off the cinema to the people who do greatly inconvenience their lives already for society's benefit.
So there needs to be a change in the mentality of the moviegoer, and NOT a change in mechanics/function of devices at the establishment. You understand THAT, right?
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The part about whether or not it's legal to block cell phone signals in a movie theater.
Legal or not, it isn't practical, so why waste so much time with it?
What, you mean people aren't gonna pay 100 dollars a ticket to have the immense pleasure of sitting in a lead box while ensconced in a cone of silence and wearing horse blinders so they can watch their movie in sensory-deprivation tank-class stillness without any interruptions or feeling of being around other human beings whatsoever? Why would you think that's not marketable? It's not like you can set up your own home theater or pop your own popcorn. That technology simply hasn't been invented, you knave!
Oh, and each seat should have its own febreeze dispenser. Sometimes those other people stink like hell.
I think there's a misunderstanding after reading this.
The arguement for: People who need to be on call have to keep their phones on to check texts or else they're fired/whatever doesn't include 'They can sit there in the row texting for five minutes'. It's supposed to be meant as a catch clause. You get a text, is it important? Does it require more than a simple response? If yes, leave your seat to take care of it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the exceptions should get complete amnesty.
I'd also like to point out for anyone who tries to bring this arguement up again: Yes, jobs existed before cellphones/pagers/whatever, but jobs evolve. An IT manager 20 years ago (maybe that's not long enough) wouldn't be expected to be on call all the time, now that the technology is available he is, or else, you know, get reamed by his boss.
That kind of thing is something that really needs to be examined by society as a whole, and probably warrants its own thread (or two). Employers have way, way too much input into the lives of their employees, and just because technology allows you to run your infrastructure on a skeleton crew doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.
People that are on call 24/7 for critical maintenance are compensated monetarily for the employers having that much input into their lives. doesn't mean its a good idea, but its not like they go into the job thinking itll be a 40 hour work week.
OK, I didn't realize you were part of the secret government program that controls the weather machines that stop hurricanes...
I have a policy not to debate with people who purposely try to piss off other people rather than have a discussion. When you're up for actually discuss the topic and not just get a rise out of me let me know.
That kind of thing is something that really needs to be examined by society as a whole, and probably warrants its own thread (or two). Employers have way, way too much input into the lives of their employees, and just because technology allows you to run your infrastructure on a skeleton crew doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.
While I agree with this to a point, it is the state of affairs. And really, it depends on how it's being used. For example while on hurricane duty, while I was expected to be reachable for months at a time, I was only contacted as often as a hurricane was actually inbound to our area, so it was hardly an increase in stress or inconvenience.
The discussion has moved into the hardliners demanding that theaters block all cellphone signals and people are going back and forth with that. But honestly at this point its hard to tell if we are just getting trolled or not.
Any sufficiently advanced lack of reading the thread is indestinguishable from trolling.
This would explain why the same arguments are being repeated from the first few pages several days and 15+ pages later.
The whole "on call" situation really comes up more than it deserves. If you're on call, and you get a text, and you check your text for a few seconds, that's not a big deal. If you get up and rush out of the theatre because you need to perform emergency surgery or other vital tasks, that is equally acceptable. If you clickclickclickclick away for five minutes, you're probably just being a douchebag 'cause it's clearly not that important.
People need to stop trying to hold up the exception as the standard. For every doctor, dentist, or IT professional that may or may not receive a mission critically time sensitive message during the next 90-150 minutes, there are probably hundreds or thousands of inconsiderate assholes who are just texting because they're bored, or their unaware that they're being douchebags, or are aware and just don't care. Nobody here is arguing against the exception. If I ever see someone rush out of a theater after a text, I'll salute them for being the brave souls they are, but in over a decade of cell phones being commonplace, you know how many times I can recall seeing someone get up and leave after I've noticed them texting? Zero. None. Never. Not once, and I've been to a LOT of movies over those years. I just threw out my collection of movie stubs earlier this year while cleaning my apartment, and there were hundreds of the damned things, and that didn't even represent all of them.
Are there valid reasons for having your phone on vibrate and needing to check your phone should a message come in? Sure.
Are these likely to be the vastly shocking minority? Probably.
Should someone's reaction indicate that an important event has occurred, is this behaviour acceptable? Of course.
But if they sit there texting on their iphone set to "FUCKING BLINDING" for five minutes, it's pretty unlikely that they're fighting a life or death struggle in their seat.
Let's try to keep from propping up the rare exception as though it's a common and valid explination for the generally civil complaints being levelled by some in the thread.
I now realize that anyone that doesn't understand this now, will never understand it.
Okay, so I'll un-lime (though it's all very worthy of lime) and bold for emphasis. See, we're not arguing with this block of text. There were like, two trolls who were doing so, and they've been gone for pages. The people you are arguing with right now are people who agree with all of the above, but because of the bolded are absolutely opposed to jamming all cellphone traffic completely within the theater.
This is the only point the people you are replying to are arguing.
Do you take issue with this sole point? In other words, do you think that jamming cellphones entirely is the only way to take care of this issue, and is what should happen? Regardless of the fact that a substantial number of people truly are on call a majority of the time, and you'd be fucking them over royally?
Hell, it's even kinda ironic because, as Quid pointed out, the people who are legitimately on call and need to receive cellphone signal to go to a movie are probably the people whose phones you will never see in the theater. Because while they absolutely must have that signal, it's rarely used. So the people you're fucking over aren't even the ones you're pissed at...the dickheads probably won't care, because their texting wasn't that important anyway. They'll get over it.
That kind of thing is something that really needs to be examined by society as a whole, and probably warrants its own thread (or two). Employers have way, way too much input into the lives of their employees, and just because technology allows you to run your infrastructure on a skeleton crew doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.
While I agree with this to a point, it is the state of affairs. And really, it depends on how it's being used. For example while on hurricane duty, while I was expected to be reachable for months at a time, I was only contacted as often as a hurricane was actually inbound to our area, so it was hardly an increase in stress or inconvenience.
I'd agree that being "on call" constantly isn't really a huge deal as long as you're only called infrequently.
I don't believe I've ever suggested that cell phones should be jammed in theatres.
Merely that people should stop being douchebags about using them mid-movie.
Apologies if I'm boxing with shadows, but in catching up on the thread, they (said trolls) didn't really seem to be gone all that long, so I thought I'd make an effort to draw it out in crayon.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Oh no, pretty much everyone in this thread is agreeing with necessary amounts of moderation with the exception of a couple people who think a person should either be able to text as often as they like or that jammers should be placed in every theater, cutting off people entirely.
I don't believe I've ever suggested that cell phones should be jammed in theatres.
Merely that people should stop being douchebags about using them mid-movie.
Apologies if I'm boxing with shadows, but in catching up on the thread, they (said trolls) didn't really seem to be gone all that long, so I thought I'd make an effort to draw it out in crayon.
'Tis cool, and a lime crayon is needed every now and then.
I only replied because several of the people Debaser is being a real cockbite to are basically saying the same shit you are, but pointing out specifically that jammers are a no-go due to the minority of people who might need to be reached.
That kind of thing is something that really needs to be examined by society as a whole, and probably warrants its own thread (or two). Employers have way, way too much input into the lives of their employees, and just because technology allows you to run your infrastructure on a skeleton crew doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.
While I agree with this to a point, it is the state of affairs. And really, it depends on how it's being used. For example while on hurricane duty, while I was expected to be reachable for months at a time, I was only contacted as often as a hurricane was actually inbound to our area, so it was hardly an increase in stress or inconvenience.
I agree. In special situations, sure. On rotation, sure. Every fucking day, for years? No way. It's ridiculous. And, to TK... no, you're not always given "pager pay". And, it's not always infrequent. I've seen it morph into going from being a sometimes thing to being a constant thing, and yes, I'll admit I'm not speaking from an unbiased point of view.
The makers of the blackberry need to be drug out into the street and shot.
I've been on call before. I got friday afternoons off when it happend so I had it sort of decent.
Although I admit, the higher ups with constant blackberry activity get no additional compensation. They'd be getting the same pay if the bloody things didn't exist.
Sipex on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I don't believe I've ever suggested that cell phones should be jammed in theatres.
Merely that people should stop being douchebags about using them mid-movie.
Apologies if I'm boxing with shadows, but in catching up on the thread, they (said trolls) didn't really seem to be gone all that long, so I thought I'd make an effort to draw it out in crayon.
'Tis cool, and a lime crayon is needed every now and then.
I only replied because several of the people Debaser is being a real cockbite to are basically saying the same shit you are, but pointing out specifically that jammers are a no-go due to the minority of people who might need to be reached.
Clarification, one of the people I was being a "cockbite" to implied that it's fair game to check all your texts because one of them could be really important like a relative got hit by a car. Yes, this thread really hit that level of absurdity
I don't believe I've ever suggested that cell phones should be jammed in theatres.
Merely that people should stop being douchebags about using them mid-movie.
Apologies if I'm boxing with shadows, but in catching up on the thread, they (said trolls) didn't really seem to be gone all that long, so I thought I'd make an effort to draw it out in crayon.
'Tis cool, and a lime crayon is needed every now and then.
I only replied because several of the people Debaser is being a real cockbite to are basically saying the same shit you are, but pointing out specifically that jammers are a no-go due to the minority of people who might need to be reached.
Clarification, one of the people I was being a "cockbite" to implied that it's fair game to check all your texts because one of them could be really important like a relative got hit by a car. Yes, this thread really hit that level of absurdity
You know what's cool? Grown-ups understand that yes, it is possible that any text might be important. Often grown-ups have grown-up responsibilities, like kids at home at a sitter's or sick parents.
And some grown-ups, like myself, are perfectly capable of checking the one text they might get every other movie or so without disturbing everybody in the theater. And will never take the time (or create the extra distraction) to send a response...because if it's important enough to respond to, it's important enough to step out (or leave) for.
There's a huge spectrum between "doctor who needs to be on call to save lives" and "teenager sending 37 texts to their BFF before the opening credits are finished."
It's beyond obvious at this point that the texting isn't the problem, being obnoxious is the problem, and that most of the people who are obnoxious with a cell phone find a way to be just as obnoxious when they don't have one. As such, even though I don't hate the idea of blocking cell signals, I don't really think it is the solution to the problem.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
whats absurd is your position that signals need to be blocked. that would kill the theater as we know it faster than kids texting. and youre the only one who is using profanity and personal attacks in this thread.
yeah it was said better up there ^^
TK-42-1 on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I don't believe I've ever suggested that cell phones should be jammed in theatres.
Merely that people should stop being douchebags about using them mid-movie.
Apologies if I'm boxing with shadows, but in catching up on the thread, they (said trolls) didn't really seem to be gone all that long, so I thought I'd make an effort to draw it out in crayon.
'Tis cool, and a lime crayon is needed every now and then.
I only replied because several of the people Debaser is being a real cockbite to are basically saying the same shit you are, but pointing out specifically that jammers are a no-go due to the minority of people who might need to be reached.
Clarification, one of the people I was being a "cockbite" to implied that it's fair game to check all your texts because one of them could be really important like a relative got hit by a car. Yes, this thread really hit that level of absurdity
You know what's cool? Grown-ups understand that yes, it is possible that any text might be important. Often grown-ups have grown-up responsibilities, like kids at home at a sitter's or sick parents.
And some grown-ups, like myself, are perfectly capable of checking the one text they might get every other movie or so without disturbing everybody in the theater. And will never take the time (or create the extra distraction) to send a response...because if it's important enough to respond to, it's important enough to step out (or leave) for.
There's a huge spectrum between "doctor who needs to be on call to save lives" and "teenager sending 37 texts to their BFF before the opening credits are finished."
Everyone knows people have responsibilities, there's no need to be a "cockbite" about it. I have several responsibilites and get e-mails from work constantly when Im 'off the clock'.
It's courtesy to turn your phone on silent. The screen tells you this before the movie. Yes, if you're expecting a call from the President or something, then ignore this. It doesn't apply to you. You're important or something. But if you enter a theatre thinking that you could receive a text or email of vital urgency and haven't figured out how to check your cell phone in an unobtrusive way (which if people did this, this thread would not exist), then you aren't a "grown up", you're a jackass.
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
whats absurd is your position that signals need to be blocked. that would kill the theater as we know it faster than kids texting. and youre the only one who is using profanity and personal attacks in this thread.
whats absurd is your position that signals need to be blocked. that would kill the theater as we know it faster than kids texting. and youre the only one who is using profanity and personal attacks in this thread.
I don't believe I've ever suggested that cell phones should be jammed in theatres.
Merely that people should stop being douchebags about using them mid-movie.
Apologies if I'm boxing with shadows, but in catching up on the thread, they (said trolls) didn't really seem to be gone all that long, so I thought I'd make an effort to draw it out in crayon.
'Tis cool, and a lime crayon is needed every now and then.
I only replied because several of the people Debaser is being a real cockbite to are basically saying the same shit you are, but pointing out specifically that jammers are a no-go due to the minority of people who might need to be reached.
Clarification, one of the people I was being a "cockbite" to implied that it's fair game to check all your texts because one of them could be really important like a relative got hit by a car. Yes, this thread really hit that level of absurdity
You know what's cool? Grown-ups understand that yes, it is possible that any text might be important. Often grown-ups have grown-up responsibilities, like kids at home at a sitter's or sick parents.
And some grown-ups, like myself, are perfectly capable of checking the one text they might get every other movie or so without disturbing everybody in the theater. And will never take the time (or create the extra distraction) to send a response...because if it's important enough to respond to, it's important enough to step out (or leave) for.
There's a huge spectrum between "doctor who needs to be on call to save lives" and "teenager sending 37 texts to their BFF before the opening credits are finished."
Everyone knows people have responsibilities, there's no need to be a "cockbite" about it. I have several responsibilites and get e-mails from work constantly when Im 'off the clock'.
It's courtesy to turn your phone on silent. The screen tells you this before the movie.
Since when are we talking about phones actually ringing? Why do you even mention this? I thought we were discussing texting. Modern phones can be set to vibrate when texts are received, no?
Yes, if you're expecting a call from the President or something, then ignore this. It doesn't apply to you. You're important or something. But if you enter a theatre thinking that you could receive a text or email of vital urgency and haven't figured out how to check your cell phone in an unobtrusive way (which if people did this, this thread would not exist), then you aren't a "grown up", you're a jackass.
Okay, so we are admitting that it's possible both for people in a movie who are not doctors to receive important (and even time-sensitive) texts, and that it's also possible for such people to be relatively considerate and check such texts quickly and non-obtrusively?
It seems like it.
Just think we need to be clear, here.
Since the conversation was being had in the context of cellphone jammers, and also since you've decided to paint anybody who suggests these things as supportive of the people who just whip out their iPhones at eye level and text away.
My only time encountering this (and the only time I spoke up too >.>) was when we were piling on a bus at a mall. I was with my little cousin at the time (he's like, 9, I'm 24) so I guess I get balls and have to proove myself when I'm actually being looked up to.
Anywho, these four tweens are sitting in the back of the bus literally taking up nine seats, NINE SEATS and we're talking about a full to the brim bus here.
I tell the girls to that people will need to sit there, it wasn't the most polite but there was no swearing or insulting going on (gogo role model).
When I do so someone from the crowd, the crowd that is jam packed because these girls are taking the seats goes "So what?!" to me.
Fucking asshole.
I agree with the asshole. If you want to sit there, say "excuse me" and go ahead. There isn't any need for you to lecture the tweens about what they might have to do.
Posts
I've been on hurricane duty for months at a time, literally expected to be reached at any time during hurricane season to go start prepping.
I've been the point of contact for multiple people to contact during any possible emergency they might have, again, for months (well over a year actually) at a time.
You're incredibly narrow view is a bad one for basing policy on.
Considering you seem to feel so strongly about this it's a shame you haven't actually asked those people to stop.
I hear that's an option too.
We're saying the same thing. Doctor emergencies and the like are ok, being a jackass in the cinema is not. Quid took my meaning completely wrong too. I'm responding to the guys who come in every few pages of this thread who tell us we're oversensitive and accuse us of getting pissed off when someone has to go to the bathroom as a strawman. We're on the same page in general, i wasn't responding to the jammer conversation at all and I'm not advocating the use of such.
Thats really fucking funny. Not for you at the time, but the Jesus part really gets me.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
OK, I didn't realize you were part of the secret government program that controls the weather machines that stop hurricanes, but that doesn't change the fact that you are an outlier, not the norm.
Your personal set of circumstances is a worse thing to base broad policies on, and by and large, the policy has been agreed upon and it has been decided and dictated from the giant screen before the feature that you shouldn't text during the movie.
Are you trying to be clever? Guess what Scooter, I have told people to stop, but near as I can tell I'm not being paid by Sony or Regal to work as a volunteer usher. I'm not walking around the theatre telling all 5 - 10 jackasses that think falsely believe they're important that they aren't.
There are enough medical personnel in the US to insure that there is at least one in every audience. Hell, some theaters require it. Comparing their need to respond to an emergency to the possibility that the person who forgot to turn off his phone will be sitting near you shown untold levels of narcissism.
Gotcha.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
People's problems are with in-theater texting and phone conversation, which are on-going distractions that could easily take place outside the theater.
The discussion has moved into the hardliners demanding that theaters block all cellphone signals and people are going back and forth with that. But honestly at this point its hard to tell if we are just getting trolled or not.
Any sufficiently advanced lack of reading the thread is indestinguishable from trolling.
This would explain why the same arguments are being repeated from the first few pages several days and 15+ pages later.
The whole "on call" situation really comes up more than it deserves. If you're on call, and you get a text, and you check your text for a few seconds, that's not a big deal. If you get up and rush out of the theatre because you need to perform emergency surgery or other vital tasks, that is equally acceptable. If you clickclickclickclick away for five minutes, you're probably just being a douchebag 'cause it's clearly not that important.
People need to stop trying to hold up the exception as the standard. For every doctor, dentist, or IT professional that may or may not receive a mission critically time sensitive message during the next 90-150 minutes, there are probably hundreds or thousands of inconsiderate assholes who are just texting because they're bored, or are unaware that they're being douchebags, or are aware and just don't care. Nobody here is arguing against the exception. If I ever see someone rush out of a theater after a text, I'll salute them for being the brave souls they are, but in over a decade of cell phones being commonplace, you know how many times I can recall seeing someone get up and leave after I've noticed them texting? Zero. None. Never. Not once, and I've been to a LOT of movies over those years. I just threw out my collection of movie stubs earlier this year while cleaning my apartment, and there were hundreds of the damned things, and that didn't even represent all of them.
Are there valid reasons for having your phone on vibrate and needing to check your phone should a message come in? Sure.
Are these likely to be the vastly shocking minority? Probably.
Should someone's reaction indicate that an important event has occurred, is this behaviour acceptable? Of course.
But if they sit there texting on their iphone set to "FUCKING BLINDING" for five minutes, it's pretty unlikely that they're fighting a life or death struggle in their seat.
Let's try to keep from propping up the rare exception as though it's a common and valid explination for the generally civil complaints being levelled by some in the thread.
And I think you're extremely gullible if you believe that most people constantly checking their phones are sending texts vital to society and their livelihood as opposed to being inconsiderate pricks.
I now realize that anyone that doesn't understand this now, will never understand it.
So there needs to be a change in the mentality of the moviegoer, and NOT a change in mechanics/function of devices at the establishment. You understand THAT, right?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Oh, and each seat should have its own febreeze dispenser. Sometimes those other people stink like hell.
The arguement for: People who need to be on call have to keep their phones on to check texts or else they're fired/whatever doesn't include 'They can sit there in the row texting for five minutes'. It's supposed to be meant as a catch clause. You get a text, is it important? Does it require more than a simple response? If yes, leave your seat to take care of it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the exceptions should get complete amnesty.
I'd also like to point out for anyone who tries to bring this arguement up again: Yes, jobs existed before cellphones/pagers/whatever, but jobs evolve. An IT manager 20 years ago (maybe that's not long enough) wouldn't be expected to be on call all the time, now that the technology is available he is, or else, you know, get reamed by his boss.
I have a policy not to debate with people who purposely try to piss off other people rather than have a discussion. When you're up for actually discuss the topic and not just get a rise out of me let me know.
While I agree with this to a point, it is the state of affairs. And really, it depends on how it's being used. For example while on hurricane duty, while I was expected to be reachable for months at a time, I was only contacted as often as a hurricane was actually inbound to our area, so it was hardly an increase in stress or inconvenience.
Okay, so I'll un-lime (though it's all very worthy of lime) and bold for emphasis. See, we're not arguing with this block of text. There were like, two trolls who were doing so, and they've been gone for pages. The people you are arguing with right now are people who agree with all of the above, but because of the bolded are absolutely opposed to jamming all cellphone traffic completely within the theater.
This is the only point the people you are replying to are arguing.
Do you take issue with this sole point? In other words, do you think that jamming cellphones entirely is the only way to take care of this issue, and is what should happen? Regardless of the fact that a substantial number of people truly are on call a majority of the time, and you'd be fucking them over royally?
Hell, it's even kinda ironic because, as Quid pointed out, the people who are legitimately on call and need to receive cellphone signal to go to a movie are probably the people whose phones you will never see in the theater. Because while they absolutely must have that signal, it's rarely used. So the people you're fucking over aren't even the ones you're pissed at...the dickheads probably won't care, because their texting wasn't that important anyway. They'll get over it.
I'd agree that being "on call" constantly isn't really a huge deal as long as you're only called infrequently.
Merely that people should stop being douchebags about using them mid-movie.
Apologies if I'm boxing with shadows, but in catching up on the thread, they (said trolls) didn't really seem to be gone all that long, so I thought I'd make an effort to draw it out in crayon.
'Tis cool, and a lime crayon is needed every now and then.
I only replied because several of the people Debaser is being a real cockbite to are basically saying the same shit you are, but pointing out specifically that jammers are a no-go due to the minority of people who might need to be reached.
The makers of the blackberry need to be drug out into the street and shot.
Although I admit, the higher ups with constant blackberry activity get no additional compensation. They'd be getting the same pay if the bloody things didn't exist.
Clarification, one of the people I was being a "cockbite" to implied that it's fair game to check all your texts because one of them could be really important like a relative got hit by a car. Yes, this thread really hit that level of absurdity
You know what's cool? Grown-ups understand that yes, it is possible that any text might be important. Often grown-ups have grown-up responsibilities, like kids at home at a sitter's or sick parents.
And some grown-ups, like myself, are perfectly capable of checking the one text they might get every other movie or so without disturbing everybody in the theater. And will never take the time (or create the extra distraction) to send a response...because if it's important enough to respond to, it's important enough to step out (or leave) for.
There's a huge spectrum between "doctor who needs to be on call to save lives" and "teenager sending 37 texts to their BFF before the opening credits are finished."
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
yeah it was said better up there ^^
Everyone knows people have responsibilities, there's no need to be a "cockbite" about it. I have several responsibilites and get e-mails from work constantly when Im 'off the clock'.
It's courtesy to turn your phone on silent. The screen tells you this before the movie. Yes, if you're expecting a call from the President or something, then ignore this. It doesn't apply to you. You're important or something. But if you enter a theatre thinking that you could receive a text or email of vital urgency and haven't figured out how to check your cell phone in an unobtrusive way (which if people did this, this thread would not exist), then you aren't a "grown up", you're a jackass.
lol, wut?
Yeah. Im done here. Do whatever yall want. Just don't be a dick in theatres, k?
Cockbite is not profanity, and saying a position is wrong is not a personal attack.
Since when are we talking about phones actually ringing? Why do you even mention this? I thought we were discussing texting. Modern phones can be set to vibrate when texts are received, no?
Okay, so we are admitting that it's possible both for people in a movie who are not doctors to receive important (and even time-sensitive) texts, and that it's also possible for such people to be relatively considerate and check such texts quickly and non-obtrusively?
It seems like it.
Just think we need to be clear, here.
Since the conversation was being had in the context of cellphone jammers, and also since you've decided to paint anybody who suggests these things as supportive of the people who just whip out their iPhones at eye level and text away.
Thanks, guys.