1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

cell phone use in hospitals

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by maryann, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:12:18 -0500, bababooey@drlauramail.com (Ugly)
    said in alt.cellular:

    >On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 05:18:04 GMT, Al Klein babbled on about Re: cell phone use in
    >hospitals proclaiming:


    >> Not on 49 MHz *FM* systems. (There were never AM cordless phones on
    >> 49 MHz, nor were there ever cordless phones that turned carriers on
    >> and off at the modulation frequency. Doing so would unnecessarily
    >> complicate the receive side, and interfere with all sorts of
    >> electronic equipment - like radios and TVs.)


    >Sadly, there were AM "toy" walkie talkies.


    The discussion (degraded from cell phones) was 49 MHz cordless phones.

    >Probably the usual 100 miliwatts. It was a
    >very long time ago and I was looking for a cheap communications method. Too cheap. I
    >didn't know it used AM instead of FM. Reception was crap


    The cheapies used super-regen receivers, and poorly designed ones, at
    that. (See the ARRL web site for articles on theory and design of
    decent super-regens.)


    >You wouldn't WANT a
    >49 Mhz AM phone based on the concept that the clarity of short-range FM devices on 49 Mhz
    >are usually consistently clear. The horrors.


    Well ...

    The first cordless phone, although that's not what it was called, was
    27 MHz AM. Yep, CB walkie talkies with PL and a base station that
    used a solenoid to lift the handset. (This was before the Carterfone
    decision.) It was made by Chromalloy.



    › See More: cell phone use in hospitals
  2. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 20:35:30 -0700, DevilsPGD <devilspgd@crazyhat.net>
    said in alt.cellular:

    >Yeah, you'd think. My point was that it's easier to teach someone that
    >posts at the bottom but doesn't trim to start trimming then to teach
    >someone that reads from the bottom up (And probably doesn't trim either)


    It's not easy to teach someone who reads from the bottom up. (It's
    not easy to teach a person like that anything.)
  3. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:47:32 -0600, "Sasha" <sasha99@airmail.net> said
    in alt.cellular:

    >I even took my computer there and used
    >my aircard. I was surprised...


    Don't be. Computers are ok, cell phones aren't.

    It's like when I ask for permission to use my GPS in a commercial
    airliner. Sometimes I get permission, sometimes it's denied. But no
    flight attendant has ever asked me to turn off my PDA (during cruise,
    of course). Even if I have the GPS sleeve on it.

    If they don't know (that you're using your air card or I'm using my
    GPS sleeve) they won't complain.

    > Back when
    >I was told NOT to use my phone, the doctors were ALWAYS using theirs...


    And if you had asked you would have been told that theirs were special
    and didn't cause problems. It's a crock, but that's what they'll tell
    you if you ask.
  4. I admit that your prior post (bottom-posted) was easier to read, but
    only because you kept the whole thing to one screen by trimming
    unnecessary quotes.

    --
    John Richards


    "JC Dill" <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote in message news:79cio0h5oht8lgnl5e083k1jk8aek56418@4ax.com...
    > Maybe. If the prior article has reached your news server yet.
    >
    > A) It is highly doubtful that "most of us" want top posting, since
    > "most of us" don't do it and when others do it "most of us" say DON'T
    > DO THAT.
    >
    > B) You shouldn't have to scroll through "several screens of old quoted
    > text". Did you have to do that in *this* post? No. I'm only quoting
    > the *relevant* bits of your prior post to put my comments in context.
    >
    > It does matter, because we read top-to-bottom.
    >
    >
    >
    > (Was that really easier to read than my prior post?)
    >
    > jc
  5. "JC Dill" <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote in message news:t3cio0da1k2ksqkrsss1ev7h3ribhu90to@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:39:17 GMT, "John Richards"
    > <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>That would be true only if you were new to the newsgroup and had
    >>not read the previously quoted text before. Most of us regulars have
    >>read the quoted text already before,

    >
    > Maybe. If the prior article has reached your news server yet.


    That has not been an issue for me.

    >>and we just want to read the
    >>new reply without having to scroll through several screens of old
    >>quoted text.

    >
    > A) It is highly doubtful that "most of us" want top posting, since
    > "most of us" don't do it and when others do it "most of us" say DON'T
    > DO THAT.


    Not sure where you're getting this "most of us" quote, but that's not
    my argument. I agree that in non-Microsoft newsgroups bottom-posting
    still predominates. I'm flexible and tend to 'go with the flow'. If the
    thread already has a top-posted reply, my reply will also be top-posted.


    > B) You shouldn't have to scroll through "several screens of old quoted
    > text". Did you have to do that in *this* post? No. I'm only quoting
    > the *relevant* bits of your prior post to put my comments in context.


    And I commend you for that. Unfortunately, many posters are not so
    considerate.

    --
    John Richards
  6. "(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:8c4jo01l5dk7at22mda4jomkougf1ddchj@4ax.com...
    > RE/
    >>Claiming you prefer top posting because some
    >>posters participate in another bad practice is stupid.

    >
    > In my case, I wouldn't characterize it as a "Claim"...It's fact,
    > pure-and-simple. I prefer to read top posted messages. I bottom post because
    > other people seem to prefer it....but there's no "claim" about my
    > preference...it's a matter of inarguable fact.


    Thanks for your common sense comment. The prior poster's "stupid"
    remark was uncalled for.
    I too tend to go with whatever posting method has been established
    for a given thread. Given a preference, I would rather see the new
    comment posted at the top, rather than having to wade through stuff
    I've already read previously. I recognize it's a personal thing, since
    some people don't recollect prior conversations very well, and they
    need the refresher of what transpired before.
    I know what the old RFC's recommend, but times change; it's time for
    a new paradigm.

    --
    John Richards
  7. "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ed5jo0hg992rmh9dp3upnvo4vlpr45ns5f@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:33:54 GMT, "John Richards"
    > <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>The problem with the old convention (bottom posting) is that too many
    >>posters nowadays don't trim the quoted material. I, for one, don't like to
    >>scroll through screen after screen of old quoted text before I get to the
    >>one-liner reply at the bottom.

    >
    > There's never been an excuse for being lazy and this isn't one of them
    > either.


    Laziness on whose part? The reader who doesn't want to scroll, or the
    poster who doesn't want to trim excess quotes?
    I've got only so much time for Usenet reading, and if I don't see the
    'meat' of the post on the first screen, I often jump to the next post.
    We all have to make compromises somewhere since our time and
    resources are limited.

    --
    John Richards
  8. JC Dill

    JC Dill Guest

    On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:49:23 GMT, "John Richards"
    <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

    >"JC Dill" <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote in message news:t3cio0da1k2ksqkrsss1ev7h3ribhu90to@4ax.com...
    >> On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:39:17 GMT, "John Richards"
    >> <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>That would be true only if you were new to the newsgroup and had
    >>>not read the previously quoted text before. Most of us regulars have
    >>>read the quoted text already before,

    >>
    >> Maybe. If the prior article has reached your news server yet.

    >
    >That has not been an issue for me.


    The issue is not "what is an issue for YOU" but "what is right for
    everyone. Because usenet posts don't live in just one place and
    distribution means that posts can and DO arrive out of order, proper
    quoting is important.

    >>>and we just want to read the
    >>>new reply without having to scroll through several screens of old
    >>>quoted text.

    >>
    >> A) It is highly doubtful that "most of us" want top posting, since
    >> "most of us" don't do it and when others do it "most of us" say DON'T
    >> DO THAT.

    >
    >Not sure where you're getting this "most of us" quote, but that's not
    >my argument. I agree that in non-Microsoft newsgroups bottom-posting
    >still predominates. I'm flexible and tend to 'go with the flow'. If the
    >thread already has a top-posted reply, my reply will also be top-posted.


    The correct way to post doesn't change due to a prior post or not.

    >> B) You shouldn't have to scroll through "several screens of old quoted
    >> text". Did you have to do that in *this* post? No. I'm only quoting
    >> the *relevant* bits of your prior post to put my comments in context.

    >
    >And I commend you for that. Unfortunately, many posters are not so
    >considerate.


    And those many posters are most commonly top-posters.

    It is RARE for a non-top-poster to leave in 100% of the prior post and
    put 100% of their comments at the bottom. Most people do snip, and
    then either reply at the bottom or inline (as I'm doing here).

    OTOH, most top-posters never snip. It's so easy to just type your
    message at the top and then hit send without snipping. That's lazy, a
    waste of bandwidth and server resources, and rude to those who have to
    download the whole message over a slow or expensive connection (i.e.
    dialup in many parts of the world) just to read a short top-posted
    reply.

    jc
  9. JC Dill

    JC Dill Guest

    On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:08:37 GMT, "John Richards"
    <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

    >"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ed5jo0hg992rmh9dp3upnvo4vlpr45ns5f@4ax.com...
    >> On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:33:54 GMT, "John Richards"
    >> <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The problem with the old convention (bottom posting) is that too many
    >>>posters nowadays don't trim the quoted material. I, for one, don't like to
    >>>scroll through screen after screen of old quoted text before I get to the
    >>>one-liner reply at the bottom.

    >>
    >> There's never been an excuse for being lazy and this isn't one of them
    >> either.

    >
    >Laziness on whose part? The reader who doesn't want to scroll, or the
    >poster who doesn't want to trim excess quotes?


    Both.

    >I've got only so much time for Usenet reading, and if I don't see the
    >'meat' of the post on the first screen, I often jump to the next post.


    And if someone top-posts, I often do the same. In fact, it's a great
    way to get into my killfile.

    Basically, anyone who doesn't care enough to follow the conventions
    probally isn't writing anything I need to read.

    jc
  10. "Al Klein" <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote in message news:pg7jo01mvmon16r73vo1uodmiepmvh1790@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:10:01 -0700, DevilsPGD <devilspgd@crazyhat.net>
    > said in alt.cellular:
    >
    >>In message <mw9id.16469$8K.12677@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> "John
    >>Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

    >
    >>>The problem with the old convention (bottom posting) is that too many
    >>>posters nowadays don't trim the quoted material. I, for one, don't like to
    >>>scroll through screen after screen of old quoted text before I get to the
    >>>one-liner reply at the bottom.

    >
    >>Sure. But it's a lot easier to educate trimming then reading top to
    >>bottom.

    >
    > Written human languages *ARE* read top to bottom.


    Right. Which is why I like to see the new reply at the top because I look
    there FIRST. I don't need to reread what transpired before because I will
    already know it since I'm a regular to the newsgroup. A Usenet thread is
    not like a book where one needs to access the whole thing in a contiguous,
    serial fashion.

    --
    John Richards
  11. "Al Klein" <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote in message news:2lcko05o0aiasi3ontaa18pi93oufsi257@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 20:35:30 -0700, DevilsPGD <devilspgd@crazyhat.net>
    > said in alt.cellular:
    >
    >>Yeah, you'd think. My point was that it's easier to teach someone that
    >>posts at the bottom but doesn't trim to start trimming then to teach
    >>someone that reads from the bottom up (And probably doesn't trim either)

    >
    > It's not easy to teach someone who reads from the bottom up. (It's
    > not easy to teach a person like that anything.)


    Um, who reads from the bottom up? I certainly don't. But my attention
    span and recollection are not so bad that I can't remember what was
    discussed just prior in a given thread. So I don't need to read the old
    quoted stuff over again. Evidently *your* retention and recollection
    powers are not up to par since you *DO* need to read the prior dis-
    cussions over again before you can understand the newly posted comment.
    Sorry, I don't share your handicap.

    --
    John Richards
  12. "Al Klein" <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote in message news:7ncko0p2glvu815rmn163dupqk6cu2jef2@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:47:32 -0600, "Sasha" <sasha99@airmail.net> said
    > in alt.cellular:
    >
    >>I even took my computer there and used
    >>my aircard. I was surprised...

    >
    > Don't be. Computers are ok, cell phones aren't.


    That's understandable since most hospital personnel aren't
    technically savvy enough to understand that an aircard transmits
    on the same frequencies as a cell phone.

    --
    John Richards
  13. Quick

    Quick Guest

    JC Dill wrote:
    >>
    >> That has not been an issue for me.

    >
    > The issue is not "what is an issue for YOU" but "what is right for
    > everyone.


    Perfect. Kind of ties everything in this thread together.

    "I'm going to do what whatever pleases and is easiest for me".
    "They have no clue, I *know* better so I'm not going to comply".
    "He's doing it so I'm going to do it too".
    "Policy? I can trick that moron at the front desk and do it anyway".
    "The 'machine' has only put this in place to screw with me. I'll show em
    who is smarter".
    "Only rubes follow the rules (and I'm no rube)".
    "Last time they said 'no' so I won't ask this time and just do it".

    -Quick
  14. Chris Cowles

    Chris Cowles Guest

    RE: Top posting (Was: cell phone use in hospitals)

    But, in following a thread, one needs only read the top on each subsequent
    message, rather than scrolling to the bottom of a huge mess. Assuming the
    writer edits the original, I prefer top posts.

    "Al Klein" <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote in message
    news:04pgo0l6luh07pb0td9ggai1grhe4k0rj0@4ax.com...

    >>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:04:33 -0800, "Richard Ness"
    >>There's nothing inherintly wrong with it

    >
    > Other than the fact that one has to read from the bottom up.
  15. Chris Cowles

    Chris Cowles Guest

    Did you mean "innumeracy"? Spelling may be a problem, too.

    "Al Klein" <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote in message
    news:pg7jo01mvmon16r73vo1uodmiepmvh1790@4ax.com...
    > Illiteracy and innumrancy *are* problems.
  16. Chris Cowles

    Chris Cowles Guest

    "Al Klein" <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote in message
    news:c6mgo0pib1hveeqa37nv2r7q2omi3nooij@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 06:57:30 GMT, "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> said
    > in alt.cellular:
    >
    >>I don't work in teaching hospitals any more, but I would strongly doubt
    >>that
    >>interns and residents would dare to flaunt their local cellphone use
    >>rules.

    >
    > I'm not guessing, just reporting what I see. The rules allow the
    > interns and residents (and vampires and household staff) to use cell
    > phones, but forbid patients and visitors due to the "fact" that
    > *their* phones are dangerous if used in a hospital.


    The facility where I work allows Nextel phones because Nextel has installed
    an network of repeaters inside. Reputedly the repeaters reduce the broadcast
    power required by the handset below the threshold at which it could
    interfere with the electronic equipment.

    Not having read actual research on the matter, I can't express an opinion
    either way. The fact some hospitals allow it and others don't has no bearing
    on what research proves or disproves about the subject.
  17. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:54:28 -0500, "Chris Cowles" <NoSpam@For.me> said
    in alt.cellular:

    >The facility where I work allows Nextel phones because Nextel has installed
    >an network of repeaters inside. Reputedly the repeaters reduce the broadcast
    >power required by the handset below the threshold at which it could
    >interfere with the electronic equipment.


    >Not having read actual research on the matter, I can't express an opinion
    >either way. The fact some hospitals allow it and others don't has no bearing
    >on what research proves or disproves about the subject.


    I have, and TDMA (the air interface for iDen) causes much more
    interference than CDMA.
  18. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:32:42 GMT, "John Richards"
    <jr70@blackhole.invalid> said in alt.cellular:

    >Um, who reads from the bottom up? I certainly don't. But my attention
    >span and recollection are not so bad that I can't remember what was
    >discussed just prior in a given thread. So I don't need to read the old
    >quoted stuff over again. Evidently *your* retention and recollection
    >powers are not up to par since you *DO* need to read the prior dis-
    >cussions over again before you can understand the newly posted comment.
    >Sorry, I don't share your handicap.


    Posts arrive out of order. Posts disappear. People join threads
    late.

    I *do* have the (evidently unique) handicap of not being able to
    "remember" posts I've never seen. I'm happy for you that your
    telepathy is still working.
  19. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:50:07 -0500, "Chris Cowles" <NoSpam@For.me> said
    in alt.cellular:

    >"Al Klein" <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote in message
    >news:pg7jo01mvmon16r73vo1uodmiepmvh1790@4ax.com...
    >> Illiteracy and innumrancy *are* problems.


    >Did you mean "innumeracy"? Spelling may be a problem, too.


    Not at all. I was just demonstrating my fluency in typonese.
  20. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    Re: Top posting (Was: cell phone use in hospitals)

    On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:44:10 -0500, "Chris Cowles" <NoSpam@For.me> said
    in alt.cellular:

    >But, in following a thread, one needs only read the top on each subsequent
    >message


    Assuming that I've been following this thread. I just got here from
    another thread in another NG.

    >rather than scrolling to the bottom of a huge mess.


    You consider a line and a half to be "a huge mess"?

    > Assuming the writer edits the original, I prefer top posts.


    And, since the majority of netizens, and the nettiquete rules, call
    for bottom posting ...

    This isn't a new discussion. A few newbies always claim to prefer top
    posting, and it's been this way for a few decades. (In this context I
    consider anyone who found usenet after the internet came into
    existence to be a newbie.)

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?