On 18 Aug 2003 01:18:15 GMT Steve wrote:
} Matthew Malthouse wrote in
} :
}
} Most inexplicable to me are those conversations held on the way home
} with someone at that very place waiting for the caller to arrive.
}
} More inexplicable are those whose lives are so hollow they have to eavesdrop
} on others then denigrate them based on half an eavesdropped conversation.

The root of the complaint is perhaps that on a tube, train or bus it's
impossible not to hear such conversations.

Matthew
--
Záhid sharáb píné dé, masjid mein baith kar
ya woh jagah batá dé jahán Khudá na ho.
http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

(Boltar) wrote in
om:

Steve wrote in message
. ..
Matthew Malthouse wrote in
:
Most inexplicable to me are those conversations held on the way home
with someone at that very place waiting for the caller to arrive.

More inexplicable are those whose lives are so hollow they have to
eavesdrop on others then denigrate them based on half an eavesdropped
conversation.

When these fools are talking loudly , how exactly is one to prevent
oneself eavesdropping? And why shouldn't people who are so insecure that
they can't stay off a phone for an hour be denigrated?

Of course people talking loudly whether on the phone or not can be an
irritant, you should start another thread about that.

This (sub)thread was about about people talking on mobile phones while on PT.

Matthew Malthouse wrote in
:

On 18 Aug 2003 01:18:15 GMT Steve wrote:
} Matthew Malthouse wrote in
} :
}
} Most inexplicable to me are those conversations held on the way
home } with someone at that very place waiting for the caller to
arrive. }
} More inexplicable are those whose lives are so hollow they have to
eavesdrop } on others then denigrate them based on half an eavesdropped
conversation.

The root of the complaint is perhaps that on a tube, train or bus it's
impossible not to hear such conversations.

So are you advocating banning conversations on PT?

On 19 Aug 2003 19:18:42 GMT Steve wrote:
} Matthew Malthouse wrote in
} :
}
} On 18 Aug 2003 01:18:15 GMT Steve wrote:
} } Matthew Malthouse wrote in
} } :
} }
} } Most inexplicable to me are those conversations held on the way
} home } with someone at that very place waiting for the caller to
} arrive. }
} } More inexplicable are those whose lives are so hollow they have to
} eavesdrop } on others then denigrate them based on half an eavesdropped
} conversation.
}
} The root of the complaint is perhaps that on a tube, train or bus it's
} impossible not to hear such conversations.
}
} So are you advocating banning conversations on PT?

No, just idly wishing that people weren't quite so frivolous with mobile
phones.

I like the idea of no-phone carriages and would probably choose to use
them were they available.

Matthew
--
Záhid sharáb píné dé, masjid mein baith kar
ya woh jagah batá dé jahán Khudá na ho.
http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

Matthew Malthouse wrote in
:

On 19 Aug 2003 19:18:42 GMT Steve wrote:
} Matthew Malthouse wrote in
} :
}
} On 18 Aug 2003 01:18:15 GMT Steve wrote:
} } Matthew Malthouse wrote in
} } :
} }
} } Most inexplicable to me are those conversations held on the
way } home } with someone at that very place waiting for the
caller to } arrive. }
} } More inexplicable are those whose lives are so hollow they have
to } eavesdrop } on others then denigrate them based on half an
eavesdropped } conversation.
}
} The root of the complaint is perhaps that on a tube, train or bus
it's } impossible not to hear such conversations.
}
} So are you advocating banning conversations on PT?

No, just idly wishing that people weren't quite so frivolous with mobile
phones.

I like the idea of no-phone carriages and would probably choose to use
them were they available.

Not really feasable on the tube though.
Matthew

Matthew Malthouse and "Steve" write:
The root of the complaint is perhaps that on a tube, train or bus it's
impossible not to hear such conversations.

So are you advocating banning conversations on PT?

No, just idly wishing that people weren't quite so frivolous with mobile
phones.

So are you advocating banning *frivolous* conversations on PT?
--
Mark Brader "The routes 'London' and 'not London' are
Toronto not necessarily mutually exclusive."
--Tim Stevens for ATOC, UK

Mark Brader wrote:

So are you advocating banning *frivolous* conversations on
PT?

Could be interesting, it would need a whole new bureaucracy though; "The
Underground Railway (Telephone Conversations ) (Frivolous) Commission" seems
to be a suitably frivolous title.

(Mark Brader) wrote in :

Matthew Malthouse and "Steve" write:
The root of the complaint is perhaps that on a tube, train or bus it's
impossible not to hear such conversations.

So are you advocating banning conversations on PT?

No, just idly wishing that people weren't quite so frivolous with mobile
phones.

So are you advocating banning *frivolous* conversations on PT?

Only that which he cannot eavesdrop on.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:13:15 -0000 Mark Brader wrote:
} Matthew Malthouse and "Steve" write:
} The root of the complaint is perhaps that on a tube, train or bus it's
} impossible not to hear such conversations.
}
} So are you advocating banning conversations on PT?
}
} No, just idly wishing that people weren't quite so frivolous with mobile
} phones.
}
} So are you advocating banning *frivolous* conversations on PT?

No, I've never suggested banning conversations, frivolous or otherwise.
Just deplored the use to which I observe mobile phones being put and
expressed a wish for quite carriages on trains.

Matthew
--
Záhid sharáb píné dé, masjid mein baith kar
ya woh jagah batá dé jahán Khudá na ho.
http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/