Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Eva Burgess Is Getting Glasses!
And she’s picking them up Saturday after 4pm! I know this because she was bellowing into a cell phone about it next to me in a café. Apparently, she’s not only inconsiderate, she doesn’t seeem to mind giving a lot of personal information, starting with her full name, to a total stranger.

She continued, Eva and Ken Hashimoto “have insurance there," she said…”under a flexible spending account.” “We just have to pay by the end of the year,” she said. And then she most helpfully bellowed her phone number -- 347-886-2157 -- perhaps because she’s lonely and wants total strangers to call and ask how her glasses are working out for her.

Hey, Eva, can I have your bank account number and your log-in so I can transfer a few bucks to my account? I’d like to get a pair of noise-canceling headphones in case you sit next to me again.

On a positive note, the little girl with them, probably Eva’s (and maybe Ken’s) daughter, was very quiet and well-behaved.

Hey, Eva, I know it’s kinda cold in NYC, where you’re apparently from (according to the area code you helpfully dispensed), but here in sunny southern California, at the moment you were talking, it was 58 degrees. Next time, you might take your business outside –- as exciting as I found it, on a morning I would normally have relaxed to the classical music while eating my breakfast and thinking my own thoughts, to instead be a part of your eyecare needs.

Posted by aalkon at December 29, 2006 1:00 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1961

Comments

I've noticed that children whose parents are obnoxious usually are quite well-behaved.

Posted by: Darry at December 29, 2006 7:22 AM

And rather amazingly, I actually tried to be conspicious about writing this stuff down -- I stood up, got out a piece of paper and a pen, and took notes -- wondering if the guy with Madame Burgess would notice just as she was giving up a lot of their personal information, and suggest she shut up or go outside...but no dice!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 29, 2006 8:13 AM

"I've noticed that children whose parents are obnoxious usually are quite well-behaved."

It's because they're mortified by their parents' behavior.

"I stood up, got out a piece of paper and a pen, and took notes -- wondering if the guy with Madame Burgess would notice just as she was giving up a lot of their personal information -- but no dice"

Maybe he needs new glasses too?

Posted by: Lena at December 29, 2006 8:35 AM

What ever happen to good old fashioned paranoia? I won't say anything personal or business to anybody unless I'm behind closed doors and the room has been swept for bugs.

What Amy does is like the Homeland Security guys who carries bad things onto airplanes to prove it can be done. She points up the lack of security that people have on their stupid phones, which goes hand in hand with their suspension of manners.

As she points out, people want to fill in the other half of a one sided cellphone conversation, especially when it's so public. Why not just hop on a podium and have an open mike to tell everybody your soc number and all your accounts and passwords? Might as well.

To be stupid and rude is a lethal combo. Amy can't prevent the Arctic ice from melting or insure we'll have Chilean Sea Bass in 2045, but she is taking a crack at public rudeness which eats up the bandwidth of our precious shared space. One jerk at a time.

Posted by: Gregg Sutter at December 29, 2006 8:55 AM

This girl sitting next to me at Starbucks must be kind of lonely, too. She, too, made a loud phone call, not caring who she disturbed, and then shouted out her phone number:

310-936-9060

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 29, 2006 1:02 PM

Once I block my outgoing caller ID from showing my number, I ought to give these lonely people a little jingle.

Posted by: Deirdre B. at December 29, 2006 2:21 PM

I believe call blocking is *67.

http://www.gwally.com/pranks/archives/000712.php

I hope people do call them and let them know what they think of how increasingly hard it is to quietly enjoy one's breakfast without being dragged into the mundane, high decibel details of others' lives. Perhaps Eva and this other woman will be more considerate in the future, or at the very least, a little less publicly free with their personal details.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 29, 2006 3:08 PM

He *LIVES*!

That's Gregg's longest ever comment, by five orders of magnitude.

Posted by: Crid at December 29, 2006 3:57 PM

So, has anyone called her yet? Be sure to give her Amy's URL.

Posted by: Gary Steiger at December 29, 2006 10:54 PM

No reports of calls yet! But, if somebody does call, do let us know!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 29, 2006 11:29 PM

I called her. Got a woman with a childlike voice – not sure if this was Eva pretending not to be Eva or if it really was someone else. When I asked for Eva and the woman asked what it was regarding, I said "her new glasses!" Then I asked her to let Eva know she was mentioned on this blog. Oh, and Gregg, your first sentence up there is a crack-up!

Posted by: Little Shiva at December 30, 2006 1:55 PM

I thought so, too. He usually comments aloud on my blog, on the phone, but I encouraged him to also post today's comment (on the Saddam thing) in writing. We'll see!

And great that you called!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 30, 2006 2:00 PM

This post just made it onto the Satellite Sister's radio show. Thought you might like to know.

Posted by: Sheila at January 12, 2007 11:11 AM

That's really cool! Thank you so much for telling me. I've had a few e-mail exchanges with Corny Koehl (one of the sisters).

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 12, 2007 11:16 AM

Well, the Wall Street Journal has not outed you as one of life's more trivial control freaks (there's another name for them, but we won't use it here). See you at the Rose Cafe ... bitch.

Posted by: CafeTripper at January 12, 2007 12:57 PM

You blogged about this? Why not just go over to her and ask her to keep it down, or take it outside? It sounds like there were two immature people in that Starbucks.

Posted by: Not Amy at January 12, 2007 12:58 PM

That was the part that didn't make it into the Wall Street Journal reporter's story. Conveniently, I still have the answers to the questions along those lines asked by the reporter. I'll paste the text in below:

I just don't always feel like getting into an argument with people in the moment. People who are rude enough to shout into their phone in a public place are often too rude to care that you're disturbed by their phone call, and will get ugly with you even if you ask in the most polite way for them to pipe down a little. And why should I have to say something to them and potentially get into an ugly situation? No, we didn't have cell phones growing up, but weren't we all schooled in "Do unto others..."? Does Eva Burgess really want to hear me shouting into my phone about my personal business? Maybe, since I have her number I should call her up and read her my grocery list?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 12, 2007 1:19 PM

Here's more from that e-mail:

Getting back to Eva, I also think this kind of blogslapping acts as more of a deterrent to a wide number of people than simply meekly asking somebody to consider the others in the room. I sometimes think to myself, "Hello? Did you come in for a lunar landing? If not, chances are there are a lot of people in the coffee shop, or Staples, or the line at the post office, who would rather think their own thoughts than have them shoved aside by your call."

I often say things, but when I did at the grocery store Trader Joe's a few days ago, after a woman was yammering into her phone right where I was trying to pick wine, the guy with her yelled at me, "Up your ass!" Classy. There's a psychic cost to getting in an argument with somebody in the moment, and I'm not always up for it. And why should I be?

Perhaps I said this when we spoke on the phone: It isn't crazy to expect people to be polite, it's crazy when you're seen as crazy for expecting it.

And again, in response to "Not Amy's" question above ("Why not just go over to her and ask her to keep it down, or take it outside?"):

Why is it my responsibility to educate another adult on the fundamentals of good manners?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 12, 2007 1:23 PM

Posted by: Balkinator at January 12, 2007 4:16 PM

"Why is it my responsibility to educate another adult on the fundamentals of good manners?"

It's not your responsibility, but if you post someone's personal info on your blog, no matter how careless that person was with that info, you are not in a position to be judging other people's manners.

Posted by: Chriss at January 13, 2007 11:29 AM

RTFO. Publish it all.

Do unto others indeed. If the convo was public all info is now public. Even the supreme courts says so.

Posted by: Joshua Sebastian at January 13, 2007 12:58 PM

"Why is it my responsibility to educate another adult on the fundamentals of good manners?"

You would like to live in a society where no one feels any responsibility to do good and everyone has the right to escalate perceived wrongs?

Posted by: Walter at January 13, 2007 1:01 PM

I disagree with your decision to post this family's phone number. You subjected them to a lot of hassle for no other reason than because you overheard a conversation.

I think you are over-reacting. Would you have taken issue with them if their conversation had been too loud for your taste, or if the subject matter was something you found objectionable, such as politics or religion?

Get over yourself. You were in a public place, and in public, one overhears other people talking. What difference should it make if the conversation was on a cell phone or to a tablemate?

Posted by: janet at January 13, 2007 4:29 PM

Cell phone conversations are much louder than conversations between people. I like to be in places where people are being social, talking to each other, but not antisocial, barking into a phone.

It's a restaurant, not a phone booth. What do you want to bet that's the last time Eva annoys anybody in public on her phone. Quite frankly, I've done a lot of people a public service. Think of me the next time somebody's annoying the crap out of you with their loud, dull cell phone conversation when you're a captive audience.

Walter, don't be silly. "Escalating" perceived wrongs? Did I threaten her with a butter knife? Try to strangle her? And I do feel a responsibility to do good -- which is why I posted this. Perhaps you don't read my blog very often, but I'm a really good friend and a really shitty enemy.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 13, 2007 4:32 PM

And Janet, those who don't want people to have their phone numbers shouldn't shout them out in public.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 13, 2007 4:35 PM

amy --

have you ever considered

the de-caffeinated brands?

they really are quite tasty. . .

sure, ms. burgess was a self-

absorbed bore to hold a loud

conversation in your breakfast

nook, but your making an essay

of it, ostensibly for the better-

ment of emily post wanna-be's the

world over, seems a mite self-

absorbed, as well. . .

just my $0.02. . . your mileage

may vary (in fact, it probably does).

p e a c e


Posted by: rain at January 14, 2007 7:13 AM

Again, why is my expectation that people behave in a civilized manner a sign that I've had too much coffee? I only with more people had the guts to do something about it; maybe then these boors would put a sock in it when they're in public.

My other favorite is the grocery store. My dad made it through the grocery store just fine when we were growing up without going out to the payphone seven times to call my mother and ask what he should buy. Why is this no longer the case? And why don't people care that others shopping might like to be thinking their own thoughts instead of drawn, by force, into somebody's grocery list? Why don't people think other people's peace matters?

Well, if you don't think it matters out of the consideration that comes from being well-raised, maybe you'll decide it matters when more people do as I do, and post text (and maybe pictures) of assclowns on cell phones on their blogs.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 14, 2007 8:11 AM

to be clear, amy,
i share your pain:
i have endured at
least my share of other
people's conversations
about liposuction [i kid you
not!], and i do find it annoying
in the extreme. . . [i half-considered
suggesting to the squawker that
she ask for a lipo-refund, as she
still was showing cottage-
cheese appendages -- but i walked on. . .]

i'm digressing. . . where was i?

oh, yeah -- i guess my point was that
your response seemed an over-reacion.

i wish we all shared the
same sense of decorum you hold,
but that is no longer the way
here in america -- i guess being
"jostled about a bit" on the
subways, and the coffee-shop cues,
is all part of the price of living in
this free society. . .

she's a chucklehead for announcing
her number in public, but your blog-
entry could have read "(XXX) XXX-XXXX"
and been just as effective.

-- pax tecum, rain, out.

Posted by: rain at January 14, 2007 8:57 AM

Congratulations!!! Your story made page one of today's Florida Times-Union, right next to the story about Jacksonville being the murder capital of Florida.

Posted by: Michael at January 14, 2007 11:17 AM

Amy, I'm in complete agreement with what you have done. Great job! It's very simple - don't shout your personal info in a publice space and it will remain personal. To do otherwise is to invite intrusion. 'nuff said.

Posted by: chris at January 14, 2007 11:46 AM

Michael, we'll delete those extra comments (my boyfriend is working on my site now, not the "royal we"). Do you have a link? I guess they probably ran the Journal story which, in a bit of anti-journalism, was as information-free as possible.

As I wrote to an editor at the Journal, would it have been that big a deal to call me "blogger Amy Alkon" instead of a "blogger"?

Weird. Can't understand the journalism that seeks to give readers less information rather than more, and works hard to have unnamed sources when, maybe, just maybe, people would be curious to know who did it?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 14, 2007 11:58 AM

she's a chucklehead for announcing
her number in public, but your blog-
entry could have read "(XXX) XXX-XXXX"
and been just as effective.

How, exactly, would that have been effective?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 14, 2007 12:53 PM

i guess being
"jostled about a bit" on the
subways, and the coffee-shop cues,
is all part of the price of living in
this free society. . .

That's silly, and underthought.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 14, 2007 1:22 PM

well. . .

with this bit, i could not agree more:

"With freedom comes responsibility. . ."

i gather, then, you feel your publishing
her cell-phone was the most
responsible thing you could think of
doing in the situation. . .

erh, "underthought," indeed.

but okay -- i surrender -- you're right.

putting people's lives on front street
always leads to a more responsible
citizenry. . . and more polite, too.

p e a c e

-- i'm out.

Posted by: rain at January 14, 2007 4:13 PM

Do you notice a problem in society with people shouting on their cell phones in public places? This is bigger than one rude chick on her cell phone. In shouting out her phone number while sitting next to me she just happened to win the bad manners lottery.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 14, 2007 6:02 PM

I'm surprised you haven't been sued you for harassment, child endangerment, or had complaints lodged against through the FCC or something. She may have gave out her phone number to maybe 10 people that overheard without thinking. You maliciously used your blog to post her number, putting her -- and the daughter -- at risk. You're the kind of person that would that does things like this thinking you're in the right because some bothered YOU. Misusing your sydicated column and blog to put someone at risk using forthought makes you far more ignorant that that woman at the Rose Cafe because you knew what you were doing and did it out of meanness. Either your mother really stunk at getting the basics of humanity through to you, or you didn't have a mother. Funny, I don't find you're home information published anywhere online. Shame on me for returning the favor, though not to the extent as you did:

AMY B ALKON
(Age: 42)
VENICE, CA
NEW YORK, NY
WOODLAND HILLS, CA
SANTA MONICA, CA
NORTHRIDGE, CA

Family: PAULINE B ALKON
(Age: 51)
WOODLAND HILLS, CA
HARLINGEN, TX
SHEFFIELD, AL
SAN BENITO, TX
NORTHRIDGE,CA

Posted by: You're Kidding at January 14, 2007 9:02 PM

Why are so many people so utterly incapable of reasoning?

I didn't harrass anyone. I posted freely dispensed news. I didn't wiretap the girl's phone or listen at her keyhole. She shouted the information out to the public, which suggests that she was happy to have the public in possession of her phone number and all the rest of the information she dispensed.

You're the kind of person that would that does things like this thinking you're in the right because some bothered YOU.

Do you seriously think I'm the only one who's bothered by this behavior? I frequently see people looking around, rolling their eyes, etc., when somebody's shouting into a cell phone. Most people just don't feel comfortable speaking up about it.

Furthermore, I was raised to think it was wrong to bother anyone. When I was eight, I thought I could fly, but the idea that I could kick the back of somebody's chair in the movies or EVER be loud in a public place that wasn't a playground did not exist for me in the known universe. A pity more people aren't raised this way. See my column below for what's become of parenting:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/01/where_the_wild.html

Regarding the info you printed above, what I have over what you posted, for starters, is accuracy: The Pauline Alkon who's related to me is now well over 100, and surely quite decomposed, and you'll find whatever's left of her in a cemetery near Detroit.

Also, I'm merely reactive, where you attack me when I've done nothing to you (not that I give a shit that you posted publicly available information). Quite frankly, with $7.99 and an Internet detective agency subscription, I can probably tell you what size underwear you're wearing, and where you bought it.

Let's get something clear: I don't seek out mild-mannered people on the street, take their pictures, and eavesdrop on their conversations and post them on my blog for no reason whatsoever. This lady disturbed the peace, and I'm tired of the presumption that it's okay to do that, and I'm doing something about it.

What do you have against courtesy in public spaces? I'll bet I've done a hell of a lot more with this blog item to foster a little peace and quiet in cafes and other public places than I have the hundred or so times I've asked some assclown to "kindly keep it down a little."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 14, 2007 11:03 PM

And, I suggest if you're going to post on my site you don't use an assumed email address -- mine -- in the email section of your post. (Deleted it, but that, and your failure to post under your own name, suggested a lot about your idea of ethics.)

Note that what I do, I do under my own full real name...coward. No funny nicknames. Yes, if I comment on a blog, or post on my own, you know exactly who the comment's coming from because it's got my names, first and last, below my post. I stand behind what I do and say.

Then, there's the likes of you. You post my information (which I left up, please note) but I don't get to know you are? Or...do I?

How's the weather there in Stanton, Michigan?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 14, 2007 11:10 PM

Posted by: Cliff at January 15, 2007 1:42 AM

Thanks, but it helps if the reporter actually mentions your name.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2007 6:26 AM

Hmm. Your arguments are weak. Common courtesy when one is offended is to let the offender know; regardless of wether you were to get into an argument or not. If she had given resistance you would have an even better reason to do what you've done. However, you didn't even give her the benefit of the doubt. In the real world, we call this due diligence.

And, for the record, anonymity is another right reserved by internet users - it is one of the core values of the designers.

Posted by: anonymous at January 15, 2007 7:18 AM

I'm not the world's mommy.

Why should I have to parent other adults? Engage in stressful conversations every time I leave the house simply to have people behave with basic consideration? (See the example [perhaps in the other entry about this incident] about the guy at Trader Joe's who shouted "Up your ass! Up your ass!" when I expected to wineshop in peace.

If this were just a one-time thing, fine, I'd deal. But, in the words of Howard Beale from Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" (Everybody, join in, just like in the movie.)

Every day, people are aggressing their lives upon the rest of us like this everywhere. As I've pointed out above, the meek approach is not working. And again, if you can't leave the house without shouting in public places and/or shitting on the floor, you should stay home.

Anonymity is cowardice when you post an attack on another person. If I criticize you, I do it in my own name and stand behind it. It's a check on my behavior. I do my best to never do or say anything that I'd have ashamed to have printed on the front page of the newspaper.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2007 7:27 AM

ms. alkon --

has it occurred to you
that perhaps the wsj.com,
and the nytimes.com, chose
not
to include your actual
name in their stories, in part
because each is skeptical of
your chosen method of "self-help,"
especially in comparison to
the relative lack of severity
of this particular emily post offense?

really -- now, i'll say no more, other
than to note that i do not endorse the
retaliation against you, chosen
by the anonymous poster using the
handle "You're Kidding" above, either.

be well, and enjoy the decaf!

c h e e r s,

-- the rain

Posted by: rain at January 15, 2007 9:23 AM

What the reporter thinks of what I did is immaterial. News is about conveying information, not keeping it secret. Do they not name murderers in the paper because what they do is wrong?


Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2007 9:41 AM

really -- did you let
ms. burgess know that
her cell-phone conversation
(and particularly, her number)
would be considered
"on-the-record"
remarks, before you
published them?

now, before you think i am
completely evil, know that
i, too, once loved, and owned,
and drove, a rambler automobile:

a two-tone, cream over gold, '63 rambler
american coupe (with vibra-tone[!], and
white walls), named (perhaps ironically)
"freddie". . . it was abandoned,
by my brother and some cousins, in
the deserts of southeastern california,
in the late-1970s. . .

p e a c e

Posted by: rain at January 15, 2007 10:12 AM

really -- did you let
ms. burgess know that
her cell-phone conversation
(and particularly, her number)
would be considered
"on-the-record"
remarks, before you
published them?

now, before you think i am
completely evil, know that
i, too, once loved, and owned,
and drove, a rambler automobile:

a two-tone, cream over gold, '63 rambler
american coupe (with vibra-tone[!], and
white walls), named (perhaps ironically)
"freddie". . . it was abandoned,
by my brother and some cousins, in
the deserts of southeastern california,
in the late-1970s. . .

p e a c e

Posted by: rain at January 15, 2007 10:13 AM

I try to be precise in my use of words. I don't think you're "evil" -- "evil" is murdering millions of people. You're merely light on logic.

Again, why would it be my job to remind another adult that her public conversations are just that.

David Ogilvy, whose ad agency I worked for right out of college, wrote in his book that people should be mindful of what they say in an elevator; you never know who's listening. The same goes for publicly shouted information.

See my boyfriend's comment above:

What ever happen to good old fashioned paranoia? I won't say anything personal or business to anybody unless I'm behind closed doors and the room has been swept for bugs.

The fact that Eva has a less careful orientation to dispensing her phone number and other personal information isn't my problem, nor do I need to ask her for permission to publish it. (I certainly like to avoid any interaction whasoever with people who behave as she did -- her behavior suggesting so much about how she views other people and approaches life.)

Check out Crid's remarks on the other entry about this topic:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/01/wall_street_jou.html

Guarding your privacy is your personal responsibility, not mine. If you abdicate that responsibility, don't come whining to me about the consequences.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2007 10:29 AM

You might be interested to read the write-up on the popular Concurring Opinions legal blog.

Posted by: t t com at January 15, 2007 6:07 PM

And you might be interested in this, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-privacy.php

This is, indeed, a legitimate matter of public concern -- as is evidenced by the great number of people posting heated comments on this blog item.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2007 6:46 PM

"This is, indeed, a legitimate matter of public concern -- as is evidenced by the great number of people posting heated comments on this blog item. . ."

not to seem unduly lawyerly,
ms. alkon, but it is
the debate over the
privacy of one's number

that is "of public
concern
" here, not
the predicate facts
themselves -- that is,
ms. burgess's actual cell
phone number digits. . .

i'd tread lightly here -- and
this post is certainly not
"light on logic," nor legal
reasoning. . . these events occurred
in california, as you've indicated.

i'd tip-toe, rather than
stomp around on this one,
from now on. . . but your
mileage may (obviously does) vary.

pax tecum

Posted by: rain at January 15, 2007 7:42 PM

Read the EFF piece. I'm watching 24.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2007 8:02 PM

i did.

umm, good luck.

you'll need it, if
ms. burgess is litigous.

-- /s/ jack b.

Posted by: rain at January 15, 2007 8:12 PM

Amy,

You may want to consider reading Concurring Opinions for the legal implications of your posting. The mere fact that Eva spoke loudly enough for you to hear her likely does not absolve you of tort liability:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/01/wsj_cybershamin.html#more

P.S. If you are so bothered by loud conversations in public places, why were you in the public place to begin with? Think about how much of your day has been wasted on a person that you apparently so detest...perhaps you could have spent your day discussing something more important if you simply took your coffee to go. Enjoy your 15 minutes.

Posted by: Assuming the Risk at January 16, 2007 10:07 AM

Why should I stay home because people are uncivilized? I'm not the only one who's bothered by this, trust me.

Regarding the repeated posts that I look at this link, as I wrote to another commenter:

Thanks, but I have Eugene Volokh's excellent legal textbook, "The First Amendment."

And as I wrote you when she sent me the exact same message she posted via e-mail:

Thanks, but shouting information in public doesn't seem to be quite the same thing. I am impressed at how fiercely you stand up for the rights of those who hammer the rest of us. Perhaps my car thief has a case against me, too.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 16, 2007 10:33 AM

Trying to bring waves of innocent harassment against someone for the minor rudeness of making a cellphone call in public is like trying to clean up a speck of dust on the dresser by hosing it down with urine. Your behavior is much more impolite than hers. That's the real problem. Not that there's some fanciful legal argument, not that she supposedly consented to having her number published. It's rude to openly invite people to harass one another. Period.

Of course, by your logic, I have a perfect right to publish a full-page ad in the New York Times, scolding you for your rudeness and suggesting that all and sundry post nasty comments over and over on your blog. But I choose not to do so, because, well, your obnoxious behavior doesn't justify mine, just as Eva Burgess's didn't justify yours.

Posted by: Paul Gowder at January 17, 2007 12:31 AM

Why is it "minor rudeness"? Perhaps the fact that others find it a "minor rudeness" is reflective of the problem. Why do you find it it "minor" that somebody else's peace in a shared space should be aggressively disturbed?

You absolutely have a right to publish a full page ad criticizing me in The New York Times, and I celebrate that right. Haven't you read The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights? Why would publishing an ad against what I did be obnoxious behavior? It's part of being an involved citizen in a democracy.

Now I know the world is truly upside down.

What's most frightening is that you, unlike so many of the others, have the guts to publish this (presumably) under your own name -- which shows how ignorant you are of both our country's freedoms and what it means to have basic civility to others, and why it's so important that we don't take having either for granted.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 17, 2007 1:21 AM

Amy, I love your advice column and your blog. You are a beacon of reason in a world that has seem to have lost it.

Posted by: Glitzy at January 17, 2007 5:26 PM

Thank you so much. I hope my column runs in a paper near you. Where are you?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 17, 2007 7:49 PM

I am in Alpharetta, GA now (was in Ann Arbor, MI for the past 7 yrs.) I read you via your site and at Creators.com. I haven't touched a paper in years.

Posted by: Glitzy at January 18, 2007 7:08 AM

If it is not your job to be the world's mother then why have you taken it upon yourself to rid the world of the unjustice of people in this world talkig on their cel phones in public? The fact that people do this is obviously annoying but why does it bother you to this extent? Are you a happy person?

Posted by: Casey B. at January 18, 2007 12:25 PM

I get tired of nagging fully-grown adults in public, and it doesn't seem to do much to stop the problem. Don't you have to admit that my approach here has got to be more effective, and on more people than just Eva Burgess? Do you think this woman will EVER do what she did to me to another person?

Am I a happy person? What an assinine question. Because I think a shared space should be treated like a shared space, suddenly I'm miserable, suicidal and grim?

To answer that (not that you deserve an answer), typically, at the Rose Cafe, I'm smiling and greeting people -- from the staff behind the counter to the busboys, who like me and look out for me (moving my stuff to the table I like when I'm up getting my food), and saying hi and hugging people I know. I'm very social, and very happy -- and it's probably because of that that I get so mad at such antisocial behavior. And I have to tell you, there have been numerous times at the Rose when I have said something and people have come up to me afterward and thanked me.

Are you a cellphone abusing asshole?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 18, 2007 12:43 PM

Amy, your post on your blog was perfectly reasonable. If Eva wanted her information private she wouldn't be exclaiming it loudly in a public place. I don't know what kind of utter idiot thinks that this is a "minor" rudeness...I guess one that is just as rude as Eva was. And regarding your comment about the world being upside down, it's not so much that as stupid people and inconsiderate jerks being allowed to breed and raise others to be just like they are. After all, if all people had common sense regarding their cell habits, there wouldn't need to be discussion about disallowing cell phone use in cars! And you're totally right, if you say anything to a jerk like that you're likely to get into an altercation of some sort, because rude idiots like that are often the same ones who'll resort to violence. The worst offenders are the testosterone poisoning victims that call themselves "men" when they're really pathetic overage boys.

Posted by: Michael H at January 18, 2007 6:41 PM

Michael writes:

"And regarding your comment about the world being upside down, it's not so much that as stupid people and inconsiderate jerks being allowed to breed and raise others to be just like they are."

How right you are, Michael. Inconsiderate jerks should not be allowed to breed or raise children. Let the mass sterilizations begin!

Dumbass . . .

Posted by: K at January 19, 2007 5:38 PM

This whole thing is awesome. Honestly, I think posting her info is pretty dangerous/passive aggressive (minus the passive), but now that the whole thing has hit Nightline maybe I'm seeing the light:
This is an awesome cautionary tale about why you shouldn't reveal so much personal info in public. And if it keeps assholes from talking loud in a Starbucks, so much the better!

Posted by: David Markland at January 19, 2007 7:26 PM

Rain, for the love of god, can it with the blank verse. be efficient. save space.

Posted by: lucinda michele at January 19, 2007 8:48 PM

Well, if such impolite behavior wasn't an issue before, it sure will be now. However the story is framed, maybe people take your point and ease up a little on the shouting.

Funny, we only recently got rid of secondhand smoke, only to have it replaces by secondhand shouting.

Posted by: los at January 19, 2007 9:02 PM

Some cell users just don't get it. I think the cell phone has messed up their hearing because they don't realize they're shouting out their social security number to the 40 people seated nearby.

Posted by: Hoot at January 19, 2007 9:55 PM

Amy, you don't seem to realize that there's a difference between "a right" and "something you should do." I have a perfect right to randomly insult people I meet on the streets. That, like your blog post, like my hypothetical New York Times ad, like Eva Burgess's phone conversation, is constitutionally protected speech. And I too celebrate that right. But that doesn't mean I choose to exercise it in such an obnoxious fashion. If I did choose to do so, I'd expect to be scolded.

(And whatever being an involved citizen in a democracy means, it certainly doesn't require or even advice publishing random public vituperation against private citizens and strangers. Permits, yes. But again, lots of dumb, bad, and yes obnoxious things are permissible.)

Finally, yeah, cellphone talking is a minor rudeness. I think what you don't really get is that public places include other people. Other people sometimes have different tastes for public behavior. In addition to talking on the cellphone, they pick their noses, they inadequately supervise their screaming children, they pass gas, they eat with their mouths open, they swear and blaspheme against a religion you might hold. They might even expose you to political views with which you deeply disagree or body odor that you find highly offensive. That's what happens when you're in public. These are all minor incidents of the fact that we live in a world populated by other human beings, not all of whom are like us. Part of maturity is learning to deal with that.

Posted by: Paul Gowder at January 21, 2007 2:44 AM

(excuse me: advise, not advice.)

Posted by: Paul Gowder at January 21, 2007 2:45 AM

Finally, yeah, cellphone talking is a minor rudeness. I think what you don't really get is that public places include other people.

That's what I'm trying to get people on cellphones to realize. It's a shared space, meaning you need to be considerate. It's no more appropriate to have a loud cell phone conversation in line at the bank than it is to briing in a boom box and put it on at full blast. Were you not raised to understand that? It's not a "minor" rudeness to invade somebody else's brainspace with your loud, dull life.

Furthermore, I have to commend the three guys working to pitch the Audi account (talking trash about a powertripping woman they worked with named Karen [whose last name I will not mention, since she was not involved]) and loudly dispensing all sorts of completely private business information at The Mobile Lounge in Birmingham, Michigan. Even with my iTunes up full blast, I could hear them perfectly. As could another guy who was there with noise canceling headphones. (I guess they weren't asshole canceling headphones.)

Amazing. I was having problems getting the Wifi to work properly, and I was busy, or I might've taken it all down, as my boyfriend's boss' son does some car advertising, and maybe they're competitors, whose business "secrets" shouted in public could be of some use to him. Hilariously, I told them what David Ogilvy said (I worked for Ogilvy & Mather right out of college) about talking in the elevator: You never know who's listening. They told me this was wise information, then kept shouting as loud as ever.

Forget the fact that it's terribly rude. (Clearly, they had long since.) If I had been this woman Karen's friend I would've e-mailed her in a flash, and if I were working for a competitor or knew somebody pitching the account; well, they would've been sunk.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 21, 2007 5:17 AM

Amy,

I agree with both you and Paul. I think you are correct and you have the right to pass on any information that you hear in public, but please remember that people also have the right to talk on their cell phone's in public. If someone is talking too loudly on their cell it is also your right to move away from them. You weren't forced to listen. Also, as you mentioned you have the right to wear noise cancelling headphones if you are sensitive to common public noise.

I just don't want to have to answer any more questions when I walk into a restaurant. Smoking or non smoking? Cell Phone or no Cell Phone? Breast feeding or no breast feeding? Shirts or skins? Talking or no talking? Children or no children? I like the last one.

Where does it end?

Posted by: Rights for all at January 25, 2007 8:39 AM

Wow...all this over public cell phone usage? I can see the problem but it is amusing how small the issues of public manners is in the states compared to how they are here in China. Number three bad manners issue is the constant urinating of the local men anywhere and everywhere. Number two is the constant spitting of locals anywhere and everywhere. And top prize goes to.....this is a good one....children defacating anywhere and everywhere! My husband went to our local Ling Li (mall) yesterday and had to detour around a small child taking a dump in the floor while her mother squatted beside her with a wad of tissue. This was right outside the Starbucks in the main hall of the mall. Now THAT is rude...

Posted by: Kay Bratt at January 28, 2007 7:58 AM

Wow...all this over public cell phone usage? I can see the problem but it is amusing how small the issues of public manners is in the states compared to how they are here in China. Number three bad manners issue is the constant urinating of the local men anywhere and everywhere. Number two is the constant spitting of locals anywhere and everywhere. And top prize goes to.....this is a good one....children defacating anywhere and everywhere! My husband went to our local Ling Li (mall) yesterday and had to detour around a small child taking a dump in the floor while her mother squatted beside her with a wad of tissue. This was right outside the Starbucks in the main hall of the mall. Now THAT is rude...

Posted by: Kay Bratt at January 28, 2007 7:58 AM

Leave a comment