That's what I said. You're just quibbling over a matter of degree, which is amenable to individual variations. In my words, "a shitty tasting dish" is hardly something that's just missing a pinch of salt, it is the equivalent of what you called "something that is awful" - which will never pass muster no matter how prettied up (unless it's an avant garde food "connoisseur" like the ones punk'd in several episodes of 'Bullshit'). Of course a mediocre dish passes for good if dressed well enough, or if enough food critics fall for it. Many (probably not most) upscale restaurants base their entire business model on this =P.
Anyway, I don't see anything substantially wrong with your view so I have no counterarguments to offer, just the minor matter of degree above. Bon appetit.
Regarding your repeated assertion that Sarah Palin is a "leader" in the movement (as opposed to a keynote speaker at an event)
Oh, and I'm glad you're trying to distance the tea party from Ms. Palin. I can only hope more people do so. The choice of her as a keynote speaker by the way goes a long way toward underlining the concerns I've noted. You don't do that (in a political context) unless you believe substantially that that person's ideology strongly matches your own. You're not going to see the GOP inviting Michael Moore, nor the Dems inviting Rush Limbaugh as keynote speakers. So, while I may have been premature about the 'leader' bit, you're being somewhat disingenuous by dismissing her links to the movement as merely a keynote speaker. That's bad enough. A party based on reform should stay away from Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and any other Fox pundit if they want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it's all just a big fat joke.
While the following link is a bit self-serving on Palin's part, it illustrates my concerns about her not being quite as secondary as you happen to think.
Mark Williams on the other seems like quite the character. He did earn my grudging respect for apologizing for something. But we'll see - maybe he might yet mature into a real political leader and avoid having to deal with these other hacks.
I hope (for your sake) that you're right about Palin. You have however not addressed any of the issues I've raised, the main one being, if these are the kind of people the tea party is embracing (as supporters and/or leaders), I can only take that as a clear message that rationalist fiscal conservatives are simply not welcome.
In any case, you were the one working so hard to defend Palin. It was too easy and simply fell for it =P.
As for consequences, I believe I've explained myself quite thoroughly. If you insist on responding to what you think I wrote instead of what I actually wrote (hint: the part about newcomers, having no record to speak of, needing to win my trust and instead, associating ("palling around" perhaps? =P) with the worst kind of politicians and media hacks - leaders or not)).
Try to address my questions instead of answering your own and perhaps there will be some worth to continuing this discussion.
Would you say the same thing if the actors included, say, Michael Moore who the Democrats allowed to speak at a party convention?
Worse. Because I actually have a minimum level of expectations from the Dems. I have none from the newbies so they do not disappoint, just amuse.
Should we write off all Democrats because of that?
Last time I'll say this. Good intentions do not impress me. Good consequences do. The Dems have done much that is good (so have the Reps, in another era). The Tea party has done nothing yet (fair enough - they are new) so they have no foundation of trust with me or with the people in general. The onus is on THEM to prove themselves better than the incumbents. Picking as their LEADERS, the marginal cast-offs of the faltering GOP and as their primary champion, the most factually challenged news network in recent history is NOT the best way to gain that trust.
All that sends a clear message that this is not a party for rational thinkers - in fact, if you're not a traditionalist 'god-fearing' neocon, you're not welcome in the tea party. While that is probably not true, THAT is the message sent by your choice of leaders. When I can see the consequences plain as day (from their actions), is there any point in understanding what they were trying to do?
Indeed, as I wrote before - if their intentions were so noble and (as the link that clarkkent09 posted shows) the tea party core is so educated and wealthy, I now have LESS respect for them for how they've allowed the wingnuts and the theocrats to hijack what would have been a most honorable third party. When things go horribly wrong, the last thing you want to do is claim that what you were trying to do was so much better that what really happened. Better an evil genius than an idiot who means well.
To conclude, I clarified in the post you replied to that I have a major problem with the party leaders and their chief supporters. For all I know, the rank and file are all good, honest people. That doesn't matter worth a damn because the rank and file are NOT the ones who are going to be sitting in Congress pumping out garbage policy. And you're insane if you think that they will do anything but pay lip service to the Tea party ideals. If I can't have the best possible person representing me in Government, I'll settle for someone who's not batshiat crazy. If you erase every single media piece about Palin, her own words and speeches still remain to reduce her credibility to shreds. If she represents what the GOP or the Tea party have become, then that billboard with Bush saying "Miss me yet?" becomes so very poignant (though not for the intended reason).
Precisely my point. A newly rising party simply cannot afford to be "just as good" as the incumbents. Complaining that it's not fair because the GOP and the Dems have just as many parasites may be good for the soul, but it does damn-all towards winning the hearts and minds of the people. At least have the decency to get into power before wallowing in incompetency and empty rhetoric (*sigh* what standards I'm forced to espouse).
By the way, Jon Stewart may be many things. What he is not is a an ass-lick like the entire cast and crew of Fox or the other opinion hacks (on either sides) you mentioned. It's like "equality of opportunity" that libertarians are supposed to champion. The GOP and the tea party really does give far greater satirical opportunities than the Dems. If, after watching the Daily Show, you still believe that he's just a mouthpiece for liberal talking points, I'm afraid we have nothing more to discuss. I require some consensus with the nature of reality before spending any time arguing.
Responding to a troll doesn't make a troll (though it does make me look foolish =P). Thought I made a good point about the DOE though? I still don't get what Steve Chu has to do with all this o.O
I apologize. I should have been clearer when I referred to the "public face of the tea party". Obviously, that can be interpreted to mean the caricatures of bigoted, pidgin English bearing sign wielders you see all the time. While such parasites (who hang on to the movement and make a mockery of it) are a huge concern, that was not what I was referring to.
My idea of the "public face of the tea party" is rabid, unintelligent buffoons like Palin, Beck, Bachmann and that breed of blowhards. In other words, the tea party's most prominent leaders. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the rank and file of the party is exactly as you describe. It is a pity that the lower echelon nobodies in the GOP have latched onto this (originally) grassroots movement and have completely sacrificed it just to ensure they stay in power.
As long as the loyal cadre of its supporters continue to let it be hijacked by the very few (but very prominent) bigots that are trying to break away from the GOP and build their own little toy power base, the tea party's stated manifesto and philosophy remains meaningless to me. With these clowns (again, referring to their leaders and the candidates they have fielded) in power, it's just business as usual - with a lot more rhetoric and lot less action than we have now.
If the tea party is serious about wanting to break away from dirty politics and truly want change, they have to field a leadership that's better than the incumbents. So far, it's been the exact opposite.
In fact, if their core is as educated and wealthy as you say they are, I am even more baffled at the simians they have chosen as their leaders (and hence their 'public face'). And as we all know, no matter how noble the grassroots supporters, it is their front man in congress or the white house who determines what really happens. As a voter, I will be voting (or not) for the candidates they field and as long as someone like Palin continues to be their poster child for what they stand for, I will be happy to take them at their word and do everything in my power to ensure that they remain an irrelevant minority in the political process.
If they wise up and distance themselves from the prominent assholes that are riding them for their own gain, I will be more than happy to check out their manifesto and even sign on if I find it acceptable. Until then, as a person concerned with consequences more than intentions, any "Contracts from America" are irrelevant. Call it a philosophical boycott if you will. You want the people to listen to you and take you seriously? Then top acting like battered spouses and develop at least a modicum of control within your own party - above all, don't let the old school leaders dominate the new one. Exercise some control over who your leaders are instead of just surrendering your leadership to the first media blowhard or failed politician that comes your way. Use the Ron Pauls - tell the Palins and Bachmanns to GTFO.
It is starting to look as if this might actually happen so I'm [very cautiously] hopeful [for example, THIS and THAT]. Perhaps Rand Paul's victory may signal a shift that the idiots are no longer welcome in the Tea Party, and wouldn't that be awesome?
Indeed. Now that I read it again, I see that I completely missed the word 'philotics' in the OP. Just googled it and it's some Syfy babble that has nothing to do with QM - OP probably was a joke of some kind. Pity I wasted my time responding.
It should be, "It doesn't matter how it looks, if it doesn't taste good". If it does taste good, better looks will enhance the taste (for the reasons you mentioned). But (unless you're a food snob), a shitty tasting dish will not taste better just because it's all dressed up (sort of like the deeply disturbed troll who also replied to GP o.O).
It doesn't matter what the Tea party "stands for" if you consistently pick as your public face, the dumbest (and otherwise worst) people this decade has seen. Until that changes, don't be surprised if no one takes your platform seriously. As laudable as it may be in the abstract - it is obvious what your leaders stand for and no one doubts that in the end, abstract manifestos will be prostituted to the whims of those leaders.
I say get rid of the DOE entirely. Let local communities decide what to teach.
Local communities do get to decide what to teach. If they didn't, we wouldn't HAVE this bullshit with the Texas BOE (hmm, makes you wonder if it's time for a centralized education policy - if people wouldn't make a mockery of their local rights, the Feds wouldn't have to step in at all). Are you allergic to facts?
And what in the name of Satan's bellybutton does the Department of Energy have to do with all this? You look like you could have used some "indoctrination" in school.
Sanskrit is the original Hindu language. Nothing to do with Islam.
By the way, wasn't there someone who recently claimed that it was 72 raisins? Well, food was scarce in those times - people had much lower standards for heaven/paradise back in those days. Pluck a common dude out from those times and put him in the worst ghetto in the US and he'll think he was in paradise =p
Why does one group get to do this and others not ?
You could interpret that to mean that people consider the Texas douchebags to be capable of redemption, while radical muslims (the ones who preach hatred) are so far gone that there's no hope for them. Sensible people only try to help that show at least a remote possibility of being helped. "Tolerance" in that case is a bit like blunting the teeth and claws of dangerous animals but otherwise leaving them alone.
Besides, it is highly unlikely that a radical muslim group will have the political power to actually influence public policy in the US. That is not so for christian fundies who are quite powerful and who have shown the ability to seriously derail scientific progress in the US. You don't go around campaigning against the baddest group in the whole wide world - you fix the demon in your own backyard first. The centers of radical islam will die out on their own - the recent bullshit is their last desperate effort to stay relevant. In this day and age (especially if we stop with the aid) it is nearly impossible for that sort of barbarism to exist respectably and as anything but a failed nation.
Only because "understanding" appears to be highly variable concept depending on field of study. Non-physicists assume that just because a concept cannot be explained in simple (i.e. classical) terms, it has "not been understood". This requirement is foolish. The simplest way (and I'm really oversimplifying here) to see why is to remember that classical physics is a special case of quantum physics. How could you possibly explain everything in the superset in terms of the subset? Paradoxes are the pornography of the pseudo-intellectual.
Ach. That's correct. My bad. (Not to make excuses, but I really was just casually poking fun at that old mathematically inept cliche - still, should have been more careful =P).
That's not even the worst part. Did you know that they did a study to gauge its effectiveness in fixing ducts? Well, you can see where this is going... =)
Zounds! Now that puts some perspective on the whole matter eh? Glad he didn't go postal on you! I can't argue with the facts - people really do overreact to cell phone users (as your story shows). Jus' sayin' that tfa's attempts to make that attitude seem rational is disingenuous.
I maintain that the increased irritation has more to do with perceived attitudes and the fact that demonization of technology (while at the same time clinging to it desperately) and the good-ol-days syndrome have made this one species of annoyance fair game to take out all your frustrations on. People know that absolutely non one will stand up to defend the cell phoner no matter how extreme (short of physical harm - and I'm not sure of that either) the abuse he/she faces at the hands of some [snark]spirited member of the community who's finally had enough[/snark]. All I've attempted (in the numerous posts strewed through this thread) is to give a rational comparison of the different annoyances and (I hope) show how cell phone users are far from the worst offender when it comes to talking in public.
Nah you're wrong, a person yelling into a handset is simply disturbing. It has nothing to do with me being nosy. It's disturbing in the same sense that the homeless guy is when he walks down the street yelling at his imaginary friend, except the cell phone people don't usually smell like a deli, and they should have more self control over themselves than the schizoid homeless guy.
Hmm, that's a bit of stretch. I guess my survival instincts do kick in when I hear some of the homeless guys' schozoid mumbling/shouting at imaginary enemies and I'm a bit more tense. Even though I intellectually know that they're mostly harmless, part of me fears (rightly so) the total unpredictability of a person unhinged. It's rather unusual to conflate cell phone users with "disturbing homeless guys". For one thing, as soon as you look at the guy/gal, the additional apprehension should disappear and we're back to debating the original question.
While the cell phone dude is definitely being douchy (never defended that), I would make a distinction between that and (say) a couple talking (as) loudly only if I paid attention to the content of their respective conversations. If you ignored environmental babble as a matter of course (and with practice, it's easy) both would be equally ignorable. If you didn't, both would be irritating. Why is this so hard to accept and why do people insist on singling out cell phones as teh debil's sextoy?
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I said. You're just quibbling over a matter of degree, which is amenable to individual variations. In my words, "a shitty tasting dish" is hardly something that's just missing a pinch of salt, it is the equivalent of what you called "something that is awful" - which will never pass muster no matter how prettied up (unless it's an avant garde food "connoisseur" like the ones punk'd in several episodes of 'Bullshit'). Of course a mediocre dish passes for good if dressed well enough, or if enough food critics fall for it. Many (probably not most) upscale restaurants base their entire business model on this =P.
Anyway, I don't see anything substantially wrong with your view so I have no counterarguments to offer, just the minor matter of degree above. Bon appetit.
Regarding your repeated assertion that Sarah Palin is a "leader" in the movement (as opposed to a keynote speaker at an event)
Oh, and I'm glad you're trying to distance the tea party from Ms. Palin. I can only hope more people do so. The choice of her as a keynote speaker by the way goes a long way toward underlining the concerns I've noted. You don't do that (in a political context) unless you believe substantially that that person's ideology strongly matches your own. You're not going to see the GOP inviting Michael Moore, nor the Dems inviting Rush Limbaugh as keynote speakers. So, while I may have been premature about the 'leader' bit, you're being somewhat disingenuous by dismissing her links to the movement as merely a keynote speaker. That's bad enough. A party based on reform should stay away from Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and any other Fox pundit if they want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it's all just a big fat joke.
While the following link is a bit self-serving on Palin's part, it illustrates my concerns about her not being quite as secondary as you happen to think.
Mark Williams on the other seems like quite the character. He did earn my grudging respect for apologizing for something. But we'll see - maybe he might yet mature into a real political leader and avoid having to deal with these other hacks.
I hope (for your sake) that you're right about Palin. You have however not addressed any of the issues I've raised, the main one being, if these are the kind of people the tea party is embracing (as supporters and/or leaders), I can only take that as a clear message that rationalist fiscal conservatives are simply not welcome.
In any case, you were the one working so hard to defend Palin. It was too easy and simply fell for it =P.
As for consequences, I believe I've explained myself quite thoroughly. If you insist on responding to what you think I wrote instead of what I actually wrote (hint: the part about newcomers, having no record to speak of, needing to win my trust and instead, associating ("palling around" perhaps? =P) with the worst kind of politicians and media hacks - leaders or not)).
Try to address my questions instead of answering your own and perhaps there will be some worth to continuing this discussion.
Would you say the same thing if the actors included, say, Michael Moore who the Democrats allowed to speak at a party convention?
Worse. Because I actually have a minimum level of expectations from the Dems. I have none from the newbies so they do not disappoint, just amuse.
Should we write off all Democrats because of that?
Last time I'll say this. Good intentions do not impress me. Good consequences do. The Dems have done much that is good (so have the Reps, in another era). The Tea party has done nothing yet (fair enough - they are new) so they have no foundation of trust with me or with the people in general. The onus is on THEM to prove themselves better than the incumbents. Picking as their LEADERS, the marginal cast-offs of the faltering GOP and as their primary champion, the most factually challenged news network in recent history is NOT the best way to gain that trust.
All that sends a clear message that this is not a party for rational thinkers - in fact, if you're not a traditionalist 'god-fearing' neocon, you're not welcome in the tea party. While that is probably not true, THAT is the message sent by your choice of leaders. When I can see the consequences plain as day (from their actions), is there any point in understanding what they were trying to do?
Indeed, as I wrote before - if their intentions were so noble and (as the link that clarkkent09 posted shows) the tea party core is so educated and wealthy, I now have LESS respect for them for how they've allowed the wingnuts and the theocrats to hijack what would have been a most honorable third party. When things go horribly wrong, the last thing you want to do is claim that what you were trying to do was so much better that what really happened. Better an evil genius than an idiot who means well.
To conclude, I clarified in the post you replied to that I have a major problem with the party leaders and their chief supporters. For all I know, the rank and file are all good, honest people. That doesn't matter worth a damn because the rank and file are NOT the ones who are going to be sitting in Congress pumping out garbage policy. And you're insane if you think that they will do anything but pay lip service to the Tea party ideals. If I can't have the best possible person representing me in Government, I'll settle for someone who's not batshiat crazy. If you erase every single media piece about Palin, her own words and speeches still remain to reduce her credibility to shreds. If she represents what the GOP or the Tea party have become, then that billboard with Bush saying "Miss me yet?" becomes so very poignant (though not for the intended reason).
Precisely my point. A newly rising party simply cannot afford to be "just as good" as the incumbents. Complaining that it's not fair because the GOP and the Dems have just as many parasites may be good for the soul, but it does damn-all towards winning the hearts and minds of the people. At least have the decency to get into power before wallowing in incompetency and empty rhetoric (*sigh* what standards I'm forced to espouse).
By the way, Jon Stewart may be many things. What he is not is a an ass-lick like the entire cast and crew of Fox or the other opinion hacks (on either sides) you mentioned. It's like "equality of opportunity" that libertarians are supposed to champion. The GOP and the tea party really does give far greater satirical opportunities than the Dems. If, after watching the Daily Show, you still believe that he's just a mouthpiece for liberal talking points, I'm afraid we have nothing more to discuss. I require some consensus with the nature of reality before spending any time arguing.
Responding to a troll doesn't make a troll (though it does make me look foolish =P). Thought I made a good point about the DOE though? I still don't get what Steve Chu has to do with all this o.O
"Tea Party supporters are
I apologize. I should have been clearer when I referred to the "public face of the tea party". Obviously, that can be interpreted to mean the caricatures of bigoted, pidgin English bearing sign wielders you see all the time. While such parasites (who hang on to the movement and make a mockery of it) are a huge concern, that was not what I was referring to.
My idea of the "public face of the tea party" is rabid, unintelligent buffoons like Palin, Beck, Bachmann and that breed of blowhards. In other words, the tea party's most prominent leaders. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the rank and file of the party is exactly as you describe. It is a pity that the lower echelon nobodies in the GOP have latched onto this (originally) grassroots movement and have completely sacrificed it just to ensure they stay in power.
As long as the loyal cadre of its supporters continue to let it be hijacked by the very few (but very prominent) bigots that are trying to break away from the GOP and build their own little toy power base, the tea party's stated manifesto and philosophy remains meaningless to me. With these clowns (again, referring to their leaders and the candidates they have fielded) in power, it's just business as usual - with a lot more rhetoric and lot less action than we have now.
If the tea party is serious about wanting to break away from dirty politics and truly want change, they have to field a leadership that's better than the incumbents. So far, it's been the exact opposite.
In fact, if their core is as educated and wealthy as you say they are, I am even more baffled at the simians they have chosen as their leaders (and hence their 'public face'). And as we all know, no matter how noble the grassroots supporters, it is their front man in congress or the white house who determines what really happens. As a voter, I will be voting (or not) for the candidates they field and as long as someone like Palin continues to be their poster child for what they stand for, I will be happy to take them at their word and do everything in my power to ensure that they remain an irrelevant minority in the political process.
If they wise up and distance themselves from the prominent assholes that are riding them for their own gain, I will be more than happy to check out their manifesto and even sign on if I find it acceptable. Until then, as a person concerned with consequences more than intentions, any "Contracts from America" are irrelevant. Call it a philosophical boycott if you will. You want the people to listen to you and take you seriously? Then top acting like battered spouses and develop at least a modicum of control within your own party - above all, don't let the old school leaders dominate the new one. Exercise some control over who your leaders are instead of just surrendering your leadership to the first media blowhard or failed politician that comes your way. Use the Ron Pauls - tell the Palins and Bachmanns to GTFO.
It is starting to look as if this might actually happen so I'm [very cautiously] hopeful [for example, THIS and THAT]. Perhaps Rand Paul's victory may signal a shift that the idiots are no longer welcome in the Tea Party, and wouldn't that be awesome?
Indeed. Now that I read it again, I see that I completely missed the word 'philotics' in the OP. Just googled it and it's some Syfy babble that has nothing to do with QM - OP probably was a joke of some kind. Pity I wasted my time responding.
It should be, "It doesn't matter how it looks, if it doesn't taste good". If it does taste good, better looks will enhance the taste (for the reasons you mentioned). But (unless you're a food snob), a shitty tasting dish will not taste better just because it's all dressed up (sort of like the deeply disturbed troll who also replied to GP o.O).
It doesn't matter what the Tea party "stands for" if you consistently pick as your public face, the dumbest (and otherwise worst) people this decade has seen. Until that changes, don't be surprised if no one takes your platform seriously. As laudable as it may be in the abstract - it is obvious what your leaders stand for and no one doubts that in the end, abstract manifestos will be prostituted to the whims of those leaders.
progress for progress' sake is the dirty word. If it is not broken don't @#$% it up.
I agree. So, why the hell are the Texas "progressives" changing education policy now? /end snark
Awww. Wish I had mod points. Quite awesome.
I say get rid of the DOE entirely. Let local communities decide what to teach.
Local communities do get to decide what to teach. If they didn't, we wouldn't HAVE this bullshit with the Texas BOE (hmm, makes you wonder if it's time for a centralized education policy - if people wouldn't make a mockery of their local rights, the Feds wouldn't have to step in at all). Are you allergic to facts?
And what in the name of Satan's bellybutton does the Department of Energy have to do with all this? You look like you could have used some "indoctrination" in school.
Sanskrit is the original Hindu language. Nothing to do with Islam.
By the way, wasn't there someone who recently claimed that it was 72 raisins? Well, food was scarce in those times - people had much lower standards for heaven/paradise back in those days. Pluck a common dude out from those times and put him in the worst ghetto in the US and he'll think he was in paradise =p
Why does one group get to do this and others not ?
You could interpret that to mean that people consider the Texas douchebags to be capable of redemption, while radical muslims (the ones who preach hatred) are so far gone that there's no hope for them. Sensible people only try to help that show at least a remote possibility of being helped. "Tolerance" in that case is a bit like blunting the teeth and claws of dangerous animals but otherwise leaving them alone.
Besides, it is highly unlikely that a radical muslim group will have the political power to actually influence public policy in the US. That is not so for christian fundies who are quite powerful and who have shown the ability to seriously derail scientific progress in the US. You don't go around campaigning against the baddest group in the whole wide world - you fix the demon in your own backyard first. The centers of radical islam will die out on their own - the recent bullshit is their last desperate effort to stay relevant. In this day and age (especially if we stop with the aid) it is nearly impossible for that sort of barbarism to exist respectably and as anything but a failed nation.
Half of it nobody understands anyway.
Only because "understanding" appears to be highly variable concept depending on field of study. Non-physicists assume that just because a concept cannot be explained in simple (i.e. classical) terms, it has "not been understood". This requirement is foolish. The simplest way (and I'm really oversimplifying here) to see why is to remember that classical physics is a special case of quantum physics. How could you possibly explain everything in the superset in terms of the subset? Paradoxes are the pornography of the pseudo-intellectual.
Ach. That's correct. My bad. (Not to make excuses, but I really was just casually poking fun at that old mathematically inept cliche - still, should have been more careful =P).
That's not even the worst part. Did you know that they did a study to gauge its effectiveness in fixing ducts? Well, you can see where this is going ... =)
It all depends on if you are using a revolver or an automatic!
Yeah, but the smug bastards who use revolvers totally look down upon the automatics. I guess I can see why =)
An rpm gauge is of course cheating and would not work if you have an ipad on your steering wheel. You have to listen to the engine. ;)
Bbbut, there's an app for that!
(Please let it be called iZoom)
but now students can use the iPad instead! Perfectly safe.
iSafe (but not you)
I put an iPad over your Mom's face last night.
You're doing it wrong ...
that one lady changing her sweater on the freeway
Citation Please
Fuck citations. I want a video o.O
\I'll be in my bunk
Zounds! Now that puts some perspective on the whole matter eh? Glad he didn't go postal on you! I can't argue with the facts - people really do overreact to cell phone users (as your story shows). Jus' sayin' that tfa's attempts to make that attitude seem rational is disingenuous.
I maintain that the increased irritation has more to do with perceived attitudes and the fact that demonization of technology (while at the same time clinging to it desperately) and the good-ol-days syndrome have made this one species of annoyance fair game to take out all your frustrations on. People know that absolutely non one will stand up to defend the cell phoner no matter how extreme (short of physical harm - and I'm not sure of that either) the abuse he/she faces at the hands of some [snark]spirited member of the community who's finally had enough[/snark]. All I've attempted (in the numerous posts strewed through this thread) is to give a rational comparison of the different annoyances and (I hope) show how cell phone users are far from the worst offender when it comes to talking in public.
Nah you're wrong, a person yelling into a handset is simply disturbing. It has nothing to do with me being nosy. It's disturbing in the same sense that the homeless guy is when he walks down the street yelling at his imaginary friend, except the cell phone people don't usually smell like a deli, and they should have more self control over themselves than the schizoid homeless guy.
Hmm, that's a bit of stretch. I guess my survival instincts do kick in when I hear some of the homeless guys' schozoid mumbling/shouting at imaginary enemies and I'm a bit more tense. Even though I intellectually know that they're mostly harmless, part of me fears (rightly so) the total unpredictability of a person unhinged. It's rather unusual to conflate cell phone users with "disturbing homeless guys". For one thing, as soon as you look at the guy/gal, the additional apprehension should disappear and we're back to debating the original question.
While the cell phone dude is definitely being douchy (never defended that), I would make a distinction between that and (say) a couple talking (as) loudly only if I paid attention to the content of their respective conversations. If you ignored environmental babble as a matter of course (and with practice, it's easy) both would be equally ignorable. If you didn't, both would be irritating. Why is this so hard to accept and why do people insist on singling out cell phones as teh debil's sextoy?