Shop Talk

FlyDog said:
So now when the kid comes to beat up on her son, he not only gets to whale on the little turd. But he also gets a free phone.

It's called telling your kid to punch the other kid in the face and leaving it at that.

Yaa know I was going to offer/recomend wireless phone insurance, but she had to discuss it with the childs father. (well she said discuss it with ____father, it could ahve been hers)

Actually you wouldn't believe the number of "stolen at school" calls we get.

And I hear the kid in the background when mom or dad asks them a question. Yeah they're like 8

I am sorry but I must agree, I would imagine the kid is going to get beat up more now than ever. Why not, he has cool gear and obviously no way of defending himself. Maybe Mom should think about a Siemens phone and try to hand craft a tazer that she can connect to the accessory slot. At least when the kid's phone won't dial out because he's in a brick school he can zap the hell out of whoever is stealing his milk money!

Id would advise the new Moto V187 RAXOR. Its the newest edition. Not only Does it have an Active Camoflauge for his stealthy moves. But a built in 2 foot razor blade so he can go Predator style on Big Bully Billy. Unfortunately its drawback is the self destruct sequence. I hear it has been exploding without any reason. So id recommend Lockline Insurance as well as a damn good health and dental plan.

LOL!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! 🤣 This is funny you guys do not know how many people actually do give their kids expensive camera phones to go to school......they take pictures of the bullies ......

you see mommy this kid beat me up!
why son I can't make out the picture on this motorola v265 only got it beacause its the second cheapest camera phone out there screen!

i reccommend a different moto.. the i560 with the anti theft device... when someone tries to take it you just whip it at their head....

1985 ATT made the first cell phone call !! 22 years ago.

Yeah, it is a really good idea. Kids don't need cell-phones, they need baby monitors, mom and dad need a way to ckeck in and the cops can find the kid where ever. I think that is one hell of a piece of tech. and it needs to be promoted!

I agree completly with your first statement that the kid is way too young to have a phone. I also agree that Plooky is the most judgemental person in this forum... probably on the planet. Just wanted to give my 2 cents because even 12 is too young for a phone.
Have fun.

i would to disagree with dxdegenerate, i had bought a phone for my youngest sister when she had just turned 12 and its been 17 months she's had it and i have never got any extra charges, additional minutes, text messaging charges, multimedia charges, or any tpe of downloads. one thing though she did lose her phone out in the woods on a camping trip but then that happens to anybody, and the phone was insured so i got her a replacement one. it all depends how you talk to them, i would have to agree with santasbluehelper that 7 is a bit too young but from 7 to 12 is a big difference, once again not that every kid is the same.

I think plooky was talking about the woman getting pregnant at a young age, but please don't think I'm defending him.

As a Sales Rep, I hate (read: "loathe" and "despise") getting anyone under 18 a phone, because the odds are higher that it will be cut off and the sale will be charged back losing me any profit.

I also know anyone can run up their bill and cancel service, I've seen it all, but I'm still more wary when it comes to teenagers. There are many responsible ones out there as well, but I still always recommend a prepaid service first.

i agree the teens are the dumber ones.....they and people for PR (Puerto rico) lose a big quantity of phones DIALY

lol

I do not know - I loathe cell phones in general myself.

I do know - however - that I am in no position to criticize others about the decisions they make regarding the purchase for themselves or family.
Perhaps it is the strong attachment to freedom I hold 🤣

Now - I have a question for you and others in your area of business that I have been pondering too.

Do you (in the generic sense of course) ever feel any sort of misgivings when out and about and observing abuses of cell phone use? Generally speaking I mean in regards to obnoxious users and/or people driving while obviously distracted by cell phone use.

I find days that I am not in danger by someone using a cell phone while driving to be quite the rarity nowadays.

At least 4-5 times a night (out of about 20 calls) I hear customers say "Hold on, I'm driving. Let me pull over". Oftentimes it's technical or billing related. It's the stupidest thing in the world to dispute a bill while driving because 1)the customer can't view the bill, and 2) they're often getting upset, and we all know that screaming in a phone while driving is a recipe for disaster.

So yeah. People still aren't getting it that they shouldn't drive and talk.

well to be honest. it depends on who you are . I mean im a helluva driver, i used to drive for godfathers and deliver pizzas for like ever. i multitask like a mug. boooya. and hey, cops talk all the time on their phones, u dont hear of them gettin in wrecks.
SOOOO.....if you are a terrible driver BEFORE you are on the phone.....then expect to get into a load of **** after you answer the phone to try and get a bill credit for a measly 18 bucks.

Quick question and then I'll answer. If you loathe cell phones (and obviously those of us who work with them) what the hell drew you to this forum in the first place?

As for your question: Do I feel any misgivings about knowing that I may have contributed to the cell phone abuses? No, I have to pay my bills some way or another and until I can find another suitable job I will not hold myself in any way responsible for the actions of others.

Do I see and hate all the different ways to abuse a cell phone (read: loud conversations, talking while driving, public PTT conversations, and movie theatres in general)? Of course I do. I can't stand being in a movie and hearing a phone ring or seeing the myriad screens lighting up (disturbin...
(continues)

Agreed, Plooky seems to feel as if there has never been an instance where he was't responsible for annoying someone. People like that are typically the ones who buy the brand new car and think that turn signals are an available option. Unfortunately 90% of the idiots driving don't seem to know that the nifty little paddle on the left hand side of the wheel will turn on this blinking light out side your car to alert other drivers of your intentions.
Also, Plooky, if cell-phones and the industry are causing you so much loathing, why do you absorb yourself in these forums. You make a concious effort everyday to come to this sight PHONESCOOP and bitch and moan about PHONES, yet you claim to hate them... Intersting, if I could follow the logic ...
(continues)

thats ****y...i like it

maybe we should just start a new thread: Ignorant little Plooky and his Meaningless Little Sherades(sp). (im sarcastic, not a spelling king....)

isn't there a spell check feature right next to submit? lol and its charades

Cell phone abuse has annoyed me to no end since before my days working in the wireless industry.

I've had to avoid countless near-collisions with idiots on their phone not watching the road, and I want to jam their phones down their throats when they let it ring loudly in a library or church. I know there are people who feel that they cannot live without their cell phones, but this behavior is ridiculous. I commend the city of Chicago (and the state of Illinois, I believe) for banning the use of cell phones without a headset while driving.

Rah Rah Schiscumbah I want Bluetooth in my Cah! That is the way states like Maine and ass. should promote handsfree driving legislation! Way to go.

You "loathe cell phones in general" yourself?


WHAT THE FUNK ARE YOU DOING ON THIS FORUM??!?!

Okay, now that that's out of the way...I sell phones to people so they can stay in touch. I sell phones so people have them for emergencies. And yes, despite my personal beliefs, I sell phones so that people can abuse them, and then scream at me when they fail. It's a rough life.

Here's the thing..I used to sell cars, too. So to answer your question, no, I do not feel any sort of guilt, remorse, or any other "misgivings" when I see people abusing cell phones. Just like I never felt any of those things if some idiot I sold a car to crashed it because they were being just that - an idiot.

Every service and product can be abused. Should...
(continues)

You do know that the post you're responding to is almost two years old?

damn, i am new today to this... should check the dates, huh.. ty. j

You didn't mention that I was also 'the man'. Your 2 cents loses credibility with that not-so-small oversight. That being said. Your right on plooky, assuming he is arguing that we should stop using cell phones. Which he isn't, or at least wasn't last post I checked. If he is... to hell with him. What he was claiming is that they CAN cause cancer... he also seems to have a soft tissue kick going on.

All of this, I repeat again (I'm sure some are sick of me saying this) has been debated and debunked in the thread in techs and trends, not that I or Plooky is the final say this, or anything at all for that mater.. but it's been discussed in a more intelligent manner on most of the posts in this thread.

Just a thought... fro...
(continues)

"on most of the.." = "that most of the posts in this thread".... man gotta start proof reading.

proof reading is overrated. follow your heart in live with no regrets....hahahah 😉



btw.
zombie j
YOU DA MAN

Cellphones have been COMMERCIALLY available since 1983.

Do you need to look up the word highlighted in capitals above or do you now see the err in your statement.

You don't want to play this game.

Bus breaks down (had that happen several times). I don't want my kid hanging out by the side of the road any more than my wife.

Check-in from friends (may be slightly older before being at friends w/o one of us parents but still a need for a younger child).

That is all I can think of at this exact moment. Once I get some sleep I am sure more will pop into my head.

Bus breaks down?

Do you really think if the bus breaks down they just dump kids on the side of the road and tell them to find their own way home?

No they don't, but they do take some time to bring the new one.

If you people want to pick apart my answers fine, but everyone has their own reasons.

Mine started the second I saw those poor kids in Russia being murdered.

Bus breals down...been covered

call from freinds house....

What ever happen to a land line phone? All my friedns had them and i used those to call home when i was kid.

Also on a second note i can't remeber a school that I have attended that alloud cell phones on the property.

texaswireless said:
No they don't, but they do take some time to bring the new one.

If you people want to pick apart my answers fine, but everyone has their own reasons.

Mine started the second I saw those poor kids in Russia being murdered.

Just curiouse though, how would one of the kids having a cell phone have prevented that tragedy?

Well, in the case of Columbine, authorities could have been notified sooner. Since I am unaware of Russian infrastructure I couldn't help you there.

I don't know of a school that doesn't allow them. They can't be heard during class, but they are allowed.

If someone feels that their child is in need of, or old enough for a cellular phone then it is nobodys job to judge. It is not their money that is being spent. There are circumstances that I can think of that would validate a child having a phone. If the bus breaks down, a cell phone would come in handy. There was a horrible bus accident in my hometown a few years ago and everyone was hurt. One child had a cell phone that his mother gave him and the child was smart enough to call 911 on the phone as soon as it happened. The bus was turned over and rolled and the driver was badly hurt. They say that the authorities arrived about 10 minutes faster than they would have if the child would not have used the phone.

Also, kids that walk...
(continues)

THANK YOU.

Your childs life may be saved by a cell phone one of these days. I wouldn't let the judgement of others hinder the protection of a child in any way. You will be glad you ignored the rest and went with instinct on this one.

Your Welcome. 🙂

For a bunch of 20 somethings who don't have kids to question a parents motives is just absurd.

Nice to see some sanity in this forum.

Well, that was from a 21 year old with no kids 😁

Then you are wise beyond your years 🙂

Hey ive got your back dude. Im just one of those 21 year old punks with no kids. But i was a kid once. (unlike these other bastards in the forum who came outta the whom with a rusty spork stuck up their asses) I couldnt tell you how nice a cell wouldve been in 4 and 5th grade when i got chased home by kids trying to kick my ass. (luckily i started growing....now i kick ass and have a cell phone to call their moms and let them know they got worked. haha) Seriously though, i was reading earlier in this thread about the kids phone with 3 buttons. I couldnt think of a better idea for somebody below the age of 11 or so.

This coming for a 23 year with a kid.

Sexual preditors: I'll stick with what my parents told me. "Don't talk to strangers, don't accept rides form strangers, etc,etc etc. A cell phone will not make up for lousy parenting.

Culumnbine. I'm sure many of the kids there had cell phones. They didn't seem to help.

The bus accedent. It worked then granted, however I'm sure the radio on the bus, in the bus would work just fine.

Again I fail to see why a cell is neede for your child. Just teach them how to play sfe, you know like parents did, before everyone and their dog had to have a cell.

Man I'm glad i do not live in everoment of fear that our American counter parts do. "My kids do not have cell phone! I'm a horrible pare...
(continues)

I wish this thread would die. 👿

me too.

You have taken a totally conservative view on what the world really is all about. For some reason you believe that a phone is a divine device that will provide a forcefield to protect your kids. Do you think that some group of masked gunmen is going to give a good god da*n whether or not your kid has a phone to call daddy. And what are you going to do Tex? Show up with a six shooter and protect 400 kids in the school from the 23 pshycos that already laced the place with C4? I think not. Get this through your skull, YOU CAN'T PREVENT LIFE FROM HAPPENING! And your phone sure as hell can't either.

Sure, at Columbine kids in the school used their phones to alert the authorities and the media of what was happening, but the phones didn't save...
(continues)

How many more would have been injured/killed had they not had phones?

Game, set, match.

It could have been your kid that would have been killed if the kids had not used the phones. Sure 15 people died, but many more were saved. You people are so ignorant! If ONE child is saved my the use of a cellular phone then it is worth it. Why not give the kids a chance at surviving a terrible situation? You people have no idea what good cellular phones could do if everyone wasn't so worried about money! And if it is safety of the child due to "waves" that will cause brain damage (bs) then so be it. Dont get your child a phone. I know that if my child has a 1% chance of being helped by having one, than I will be providing one. And at that time I will use my own money to buy it! And if something happens to the phone, then it will ...
(continues)

OMG I knew you or someone like you would post that. So predictable.

SAR ratings / levels that cell phones emit have NOT BEEN proven to cause harm to humans of any age.

The data is completely inconclusive. The only studies that had any real findings tested ANALOG based handsets, which are no longer sold.

Like I said - take it as you will.

I would suggest you look into some of the research, as well as, the warnings put out by governements (British, Chinese, Australian, and numerous others).

Ignorance is bliss though I suppose.

And as of a few months ago, the research has been proven wrong.

Hardly.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

And how many of those studies use analog handsets for testing?

For every study that you cite I can find one that shows the contrary.

Inconclusive.

Arrogance is bliss as well I suppose.

It is not solely analog.

Listen - I post originally in an effort to be helpful - if you do not want to take into consideration the possible detrimental effects that it can have on your childs physical and mental well being - by all means, that is your choice.

Furthermore - if it takes conclusive proof for you to believe anything - then I hate to break it to you - there are numerous things we take for granted everyday without being able to prove conclusively.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

It's not a matter of not being conclusive. It is a matter of there being substantial studies showing that no harm is caused.

You need to step back from the cool-aid yourself bucko.

Plooky, Tex is right. Your references are slightly dated. Since 1999 there have been many studies conducted in industrialized nations regarding cellular phone usage and potential risks to the body. In fact the CDC and the FDA sponsored testing in the US because of public outcry. Guess what, they determined that the data supporting the adverse effects of RF was inconclusive, AND it was more likely that the low emissions of these types of frequencies would not cause harm in humans. If you have any data that bolsters your posititon on this subject, please attach a link in your next post. Until then, DO SOME RESEARCH.

Texas, while you're right and the testing on todays digital phones hasn't proven to cause harm it's not been proven to be HARMLESS either. As you said the data is inconclusive at this point and as a biologist I would prefer to err on the side of caution until something more empirical than "We don't know" is released.

Your decision to provide your children with phones is just that....your decision. Whether I or anyone else agrees with it is irrelevant.

I appreciate your approach. Tact is something many people today severly lack.

Amen to that! And thanks for the compliment.

By the time your kids are old enough we'll probably be lookin at all 3g tech anyway, in which case it'll be a whole different ball game.

Exactly.

Now should I buy a playstation or xbox for my kids birthday in 3 years. 🤣

🤣 I hear the Playstation 9's gonna be awesome!

But then I've still got my 8-bit NES....OLD SKOOL ROX!!!

How is 3g going to change things?

The same way digital did. Different levels of radiation, different frequencies, and different ways of transmitting.

If, for example, 3G technologies sent information in short powerful bursts (hypothetically) instead of a continuous lower level signal then the exposure would be higher with 3G. If on the other hand it uses a lower level at a higher frequency (which we know has a lower penetration ability) the effects on the soft tissue would again change.

Since I have read that 3G actually emits larger amounts of radiation on average (and at a higher frequency) than 2G it's certainly going to have to be studied individually to know its results. Right now 3G's in its infancy, but I'm sure someone will put forth the effort to study it a...
(continues)

captainplooky said:
Just remember - A child's/teen's brain and nervous system haven't fully matured - and that excessive use of a cellular phone by them could potentially have serious implications.

Take it as you will.

🤣

What are you talking about?

Seriously?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6872 »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1436543,00 ... »

Of course - like I said - ignornace is bliss.

That doesn't help at work with firewalls, but thanks for trying.

Cell phones use radio waves. Radio waves are constantly passing through your body. If there were problems associated with radio waves, they would have cropped up long ago.

Not to defend plooky, but the radio waves that pass thru our bodies on a regular basis are at a much lower intensity than those of a phone by the time they hit us. The phone is being held literally inches from the brain and radiating in all directions. The human skull is incapable of stopping this radiation. The effects of todays digital phones are inconclusive, but we know that it is A LOT stronger than general background radiation.

I generally only worry if you're one of the rare people who are disoriented when using a cell phone (not referring to distraction, but to a genuine feeling of vertigo).

The brain and eyes act as sponges.

It may not be conclusive (yet) - but it is enough to warrant hefty concern.

I'm not touching the sponges comment as it would frankly get me too pissed off as an educated individual. But needless to say it's entirely inaccurate.

I do have to agree that it's enough to warrant concern. Especially with tri-mode CDMA phones which still have the ability to radiate AMPS signals.

Again, I would err on the side of caution, but everyone else can make up thier own minds.

I'm not touching the sponges comment as it would frankly get me too pissed off as an educated individual. But needless to say it's entirely inaccurate.

Please do.

Seeing as how the brain, ears, and eyes are highly susceptible to microwave radio damage and such radiation deeply penetrates these organs I find my statement to be accurate.

Also - University of Utah research yields results indicating that the younger a child is the more radiation is absorbed by the brain.

Hell - even Motorola advises against pointing a cell antenna toward exposed parts of the body - not to mention the "big three" cell phone makers (Motorola - Sony Ericson - Nokia) have all at one time or another applied for patents regard...
(continues)

The brain, ears and eyes are susceptible, yes. No disputing that. However to imply that they're like sponges, soaking up and retaining radiation is just ignorant. They're susceptible due to the fact that they're soft tissue with little connective tissue to offer internal protection. Notice I said INTERNAL protection. There's a reason evolution placed these organs in the skull and then made the skull so thick.

The skull, along with the skin, muscle and other connective tissues lining the head and face DO serve to block quite a bit of the radiation from reaching these organs. What does get through isn't necessarily soaked up any more than it is by other tissue. And unlike sponges, no tissue in the body actually RETAINS radiation of a...
(continues)

The radiation is soaked up (aka absorbed) by these tissues as though it were a sponge (from my understanding and readings) - the retention of which is inaccurate in the analogy.

Also - I think it prudent to point out the fact that our environment has vastly changed.

San Fransico Medical Society
Long-term and cumulative exposure to such massively increased RF has no precedent in history. These exposures simply did not exist 150 years ago. Life on earth evolved with vanishingly small RF exposures, most of that from natural lightning. We have increased the background nonionizing radiation by 1012. There is no conclusive scientific evidence on the safety or risk of such exposures, but a growing body of scientific eviden

...
(continues)

To clarify, when we say "absorbed" we refer to the fact that the radiation actually penetrates the tissue. Whether it gets through or not is not mentioned. Microwave radiation classifies as ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is not actually stopped by soft tissue, it passes directly through it. Bone completely stops lower level ionizing radiation (x-rays) but not microwaves. Damage occurs when that high energy wave passes through flesh and breaks up molecules (DNA to be specific). After that it keeps on going. To "soak it up" as you say would imply that the brain actually stops the radiation. If that were the case a phone would loose reception abilities when trying to communicate with a tower on the other side of your head. Sinc...
(continues)

Seen Johnny Mnemonic one too many times huh?

Perhaps we should ask Dr. Rollins about his theory on the "black shakes".

(Reposted in right place)

Good movie.

Btw - more research coming out daily on the negative aspects of Microwave radiation.

http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/250705_tech.htm »

Here we have recent Israeli research demonstrating macroscopic and microscopic damage to visual systems (eyes) - some of which - is totally unrepairable.

At least one kind of damage seems to accumulate over time and not heal, challenging the common view and leading the researchers to the assertion that the duration of exposure is not less important than the intensity of the irradiation.

How does one explain this away?

I guess it's more junk science and I'm a crackpot though....

Yes, you are a crackpot! A crackpot who posts at almost 3 a.m.


A crackpot with no life?


Just because you parrot quotes from scientists about microwave radiation (is this strictly cellphones or all microwave?) is not going to change anyone's mind one way or the other. I still err on the side of caution when it comes to kids....Texaswireless still isn't worried about it.....AND YOU'RE STILL DUMB ENOUGH TO STRESS THE POINT NEARLY THREE DAYS LATER!!!

Stop it and go away!

P.S.--You still never answered my question.

Some science fo' yo ass!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8726644/ »

For those of you who have firewalls:

Cancer bomb zaps tumor cells in mice:
Treatment could have the same effect in humans, scientists say

LONDON - A smart anti-cancer bomb that acts like a Trojan horse can penetrate deep into tumors where it explodes and destroys cancerous cells without harming healthy ones, scientists said on Wednesday.

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who devised the molecular size bomb tested it in mice with skin or lung cancer. Mice given the treatment lived more than three times longer than untreated rodents.

The scientists believe it could have the same effect in humans.

We’re quite hopeful and optimistic that as...
(continues)

Man o Man.
3 quick bits.
TexasWireless is the man.
Disturbed is also the man.
Plooky is lack there of said man.

But in all reality gentlemen. Descriptive science aside. (because i got a D in highschool BIO........dont give me that look, ive always been into the arts.)

To really worry about the waves that a cell phone gives off is just silly. I want you to think of your average day as an American Consumer. How many different things do you run across, use, what have you that if you were exposed too often you could potentially get cancer or emphasema.....ghonnerhea. If these cells phones nowadays scare you; then ****, id hate to hear you complain about milk. From what i understand, because of the chemicals they use in crops,a small ma...
(continues)

I was up late too, but at least I was with my sick kiddos. 😁

Johnny N SUCKED. Good story idea, BAD acting.

And daily?

Ok, for our entertainment and the fact that you have been called out for that statement being B.S. please post all the new studies that come out daily.

That would mean there are around 250 new studies every year on this particular item that all support your conclusion (or the conclusion for which you side with). I'll even let you get away with 100, meaning only two new ones come out per week instead of "daily".

Care to revise your b.s. story? (forgot which movie that was from).

Good movie.

Btw - more research coming out daily on the negative aspects of Microwave radiation.

http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/250705_tech.htm »

Here we have recent Israeli research demonstrating macroscopic and microscopic damage to visual systems (eyes) - some of which - is totally unrepairable.

At least one kind of damage seems to accumulate over time and not heal, challenging the common view and leading the researchers to the assertion that the duration of exposure is not less important than the intensity of the irradiation.

How does one explain this away?

I guess it's more junk science and I'm a crackpot though....

With as much as you are typing Plooky, I would be more concerned with the radiation given off by your computer monitor, lights, and microwave. You sit in front of a device that is producing millions of little energy waves "beeing soaked up like a sponge" through your eyes and ears, hell maybe even your tongue. But in all the time you have to sit here and stir up a storm about inconclusive evidence, you are willing to tolerate the adverse effects that all of these other emissions have on your body. None of the stuff is going to improve our health, but it is definately a little naive to believe that using a cell phone is going to cause my brain to liquify.

Sure, some peoples' bodies may be more sensitive. That's to be expected.

However, even if you don't own or use a cell phone, the cellular frequencies are still passing through your body, as well as radio station frequencies, walkie-talkies, police/EMS/fire bands, and whatever else is being used out there.

Never denied that....just said that they're much weaker. Using the phone yourself subjects you to the full strength of the transmission. Waves decrease in energy as they travel and therefore effectiveness.

You're still subjected to them, yes, but it's the intensity of the radiation that determines its effectiveness.

Even by using a handsfree set with the phone at your hip, the radiation around your head drops exponentially... (did I spell that right?)

Do not forget that there are other factors also that can affect the amount of radiation that one aborbs such as resonance in enclosed spaces.

Very little radiation resonates. For the most part it either penetrates or is absorbed, but VERY little resonates.

(And don't even try to say that it resonates in the sinus cavities)

Perhaps you should inform Japan's Sendai's Tohoku University and physics professor Tsuyoshi Hondou of that....

All of my education dealing with radiation (waves or particles) suggests that in most everyday cases (labs are not an everyday situation) that radiation either penetrates and moves on through the materials or is absorbed/stopped. I've not seen very many materials used in everyday construction which would reflect the radiation. As for in the sinuses that would require bone to reflect radiation, which to the best of my knowledge it does not. It does absorb radiation (that's how x-ray's work after all), but I've not seen an instance in which it reflected it.

While I didn't say that radiation NEVER resonates (which would be stupid) I said it doesn't usually.

As always I'm open to new info, but make it empirical data, not conjecture or o...
(continues)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6872 »

Recent studies suggesting cellphone radiation may pose a health hazard have prompted UK experts to warn parents against giving mobile phones to young children.

A report issued on Tuesday by the UK's National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), a government advisory body, calls for a "precautionary approach" to cellphone use. The study acknowledges that there is no firm evidence that cellphone radiation is harmful but warns that the possibility also cannot be ruled out.

"I don't think we can put our hands on our hearts and say mobile phones are safe," said Sir William Stewart, chairman of the NRPB, at a press conference in London on Tuesday.

The NRPB report repeats concerns first ...
(continues)

I dont have time to search for articles defending my statement here, but I know that they have proven otherwise. Regardless, the child probably has more chance in being abducted by someone than they do having damage done to their brain by a cellular phone, especially knowing that the child isn't going to be talking on it all that often.

In case you haven't noiced, it seems that everything is harmfull in some fashion in todays world. Cancer is caused by almost everything so they say.

This theory ranks right up there with the one about the microwave causing cancer.

Microwaves don't give you cancer because of that mesh screen on the front of the door... Microwaves themselves are about so many inches, too large to fit through the mesh, how's that for worthless knowledge...

That is my point... although I dont exactly understand your post all that well.

whoa.....i didnt know that microwaves have a radius......sweet.
thanks for the tidbit.


by the way. id like to thank everybody in this thread for filling the last two hours of time up for me reading about this crap. entertaining, funny, AND educational.

its all good when you are misunderstood
poopy

"The study acknowledges that there is no firm evidence that cellphone radiation is harmful but warns that the possibility also cannot be ruled out."

Synopsis: THEY HAVE NO IDEA.

Yup - just like they can not conclusively show that smoking causes lung cancer.

As I said before, I think Doctor Henry Lai got it right when he said:

“We see effects, but we don’t know what the consequences are,” Lai says. “With so many people using cell phones, we will eventually know. The largest experiment in the history of the world is already under way. We will know, in about 10 or 15 years, maybe.”

Henry Lai - who in 1995 - along with Dr. Singh found double-strand DNA breaks after RF exposure similar to Cell Phone levels - which were unrepairable and continued in subsequent generations of cells.

Similar to Cell Phone levels? What does that mean?

specifically for this study

...levels below the current FCC exposure standard.

I'm sure that DNA does break when subjected to RF exposure SIMILAR to cell phones (especially in 1995 when SAR ratings weren't as heavily restricted). However there are two problems with that.

A.) Without subjecting the DNA to ACTUAL cell phone radiation the results are skewed.

B.) Did they directly subject the DNA to the RF signals or did they account for the shielding effect produced by the skin, bone, muscles and connective tissue which would be between the acutal nervous tissue and the transmission source?

Even if the DNA strand is broken, only about 95% of human DNA actually carries genetic material, therefore the likelihood of the breakage or mutation occuring inside a gene is VERY LOW. This is one reason that it ta...
(continues)

And in 1995 Analog signals were used that transmit anywhere from 3 to 10 times that of digital signals.

Please cite something currently relevant.

Mobile phones tumour risk to young children
By Sam Coates, Nigel Hawkes and Alexandra Blair

CHILDREN under the age of eight should not use mobile phones, parents were advised last night after an authoritative report linked heavy use to ear and brain tumours and concluded that the risks had been underestimated by most scientists.

Professor Sir William Stewart, chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), said that evidence of potentially harmful effects had become more persuasive over the past five years.

The news prompted calls for phones to carry health warnings and panic in parts of the industry. One British manufacturer immediately suspended a model aimed at four to eight-year-olds.

The number of mobiles in ...
(continues)

“All of these studies have yet to be replicated and are of varying quality but we can’t dismiss them out of hand,”

Synopsis: THEY HAVE NO IDEA.

Kinda like gravity ... that we just label a fundamental force.

You can reproduce experiments dealing with gravitational forces over and over again. That is high school physics.

Come on, you aren't that ignorant are you? I guess I was giving you more credit than you deserve.

No no .. I'm pretty sure he is questioning whether Gravity really exists. He'll dig up a few articles by David Martin, and trash Newton. Then He'll wrap it all up with an attack Evolution as only being a "Theory" and link a few creationist sites.
You should really open a new thread for this stuff.. it's hard to dig these responses out of the pile now, and plooky will most likely explode

- And again, with the cell phone cancer issue. It was debated in the techs and trends forum under "bluetooth safty". read.. make your own decision, or ideally read more on it if your actually interested.

🤣 🤣 🤣

You do realize that a benign tumor has nothing to do with cancer. Malignancy is the thing you are supposed to be afraid of. Therefore, your argument about the development and cancer possibilities of children is completely throw out the window. what are you here to prove?

I haven't seen him prove anything other than his disturbing ability to fear-monger.

Plooky, you are ridiculous. First off, there have been absolutely NO studies indicating that the data you choose to regurgitate is accurate. Secondly, have you even taken the time to read what you write or do you just type away without a care? Cellular devices now are emitting less RF than ever before. And there is no link between cellular devices and the development of children. Did your kids have a hard time developing with the CLASS III laser beam you hid in their room inside their CD player? Didn't think so. 😉

🙄 The days we live in? 🤣

Children who are not old enough to obtain a driver's license do not need a cell phone.

If your child were in a school and something were to happen (a terrorist attack, a coked out kid comes in with a gun, a drunk driver decides to take a short cut through their classroom) wouldn't you want them to be able to get in touch with you?

You may feel that a child under 16 doesn't need a cell phone, I respect that as your opinion, but to laugh at my opinion and dismiss it is childish at best. This is the I'm right your wrong debate. We are all right if we do things for ourselves as we see fit and respect the decisions of others. Obviously this is something that I have throughly thought through and will work for me in my situation.

You roll your eyes and laugh at my comment about the times we live in, but how many news stories...
(continues)

Not to take away from those non-parents (tadams) that do understand what we go through daily wondering what kind of world our children will grow up in.

Shadow, you have hit the nail on the head. There are certain circumstances that warrant children having wireless phones. However, to think practically about the situation is that most people don't work in the same place their children go to school (you made this point.) And in that circumstance, what good is the phone your child has if it is still going to require you traveling to that location.

Sure you have a great heads up, but the problem is social, not personal. In our society we are blinded by evil everyday. The boogeyman down the street, the terrorists coming across our borders, and what not.

Why not try to fix the problems instead of having a plan to deal with the problem.

Easy solutions include - have a block party...
(continues)

And you know best how someone else should spend their money?

Are you also an expert on the socialist/communist 5 year plans?

Well what people waste their money on is their own choice. Whether it be weed/booze/flowers/ novelty phones for their children, its all good. Over protection sells man. They child doesn't actually have to need the phone, they manufacturer just has to convince the parent their is a need for it.

Sort of like after Sept. 11th businessmen parachutes were all of a sudden on sale everywhere at 1000 bucks a pop and all kinds of air filtering face mask monstrosities came about after the Anthrax scare. Odds of you dying in a building clasping through an act of war or natural disaster are no different than zero, same with your odds of coming in contact with anthrax but that wont stop people from spending on $hit they don't need, because they ...
(continues)

Well I can tell you that my choice to purchase a cell phone for my child (which I do not have yet) will not be fueled by anyone or anything other than myself and my spouse. If there are phones more suitable for children out there at that time then your damn right that is what I will buy for them. It is giving in to my own beliefs, not anyone elses. I have my reasons for wanting them to have one, so who the hell are you people to tell me what I can and cannnot do for my child? And to judge the ones who decide to make the leap to help protect their own children just boggles my mind.

Well then please give us a heads up on why a young child under 10 would need this phone? Is it for at school where they already have security mechanisms.

I think the main point here that we are not agreeing on is that "having this cell phone will actually help protect your child". I say it CANNOT and WILL NOT do anything of the sort. Sure it can make them readily available for the parent to call.. but protect them ... no.

It isn't a security guard, its a piece of plastic. If someone was to try and abduct a child, whats going to prevent this from happening is not the child having a device they must fumble around with while a human 3 times their size is attacking them. Education on how to recognize those situations is going to ...
(continues)

Get off the whole "you can't tell me what to do with my baby" bu*l$h!*. It's tired and old. No one cares what you do with your baby, at least I don't. Wrap your child in bubble wrap if you see fit, why not 2 layers.

We're just chiming in with our opinions on a device being marketed in a dubious way, that can be debated. I'm not saying anything on whether a child can own a phone, I'm not arguing its going to give them cancer like some people. I'm just saying, 'I don't believe that it will make a persons child any more safe if they have one in an actual emergency'.

If you dont care then shut up! You sound rediculous. If you want to know why I feel the need, then read all of my previous posts. I explain why in them along with a few stories that include childrens lives being saved by a cellular phone. I am not going to argue with you about it. I just know what I am going to do for my own piece of mind.

"If i don't care then shut up" ?!!? Wow, what are you 6 years old ? Grow up please. Civil adults attack the arguments not the person. And come on, I don't sound ridiculous, I'm presenting an opinion contrary to yours and your response is "shut up"... I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

My response is shut up because you dont have an argument here. You have not presented one piece of evidence telling us why your belief is the right one. And honestly, I am tired of watching you dig deeper and deeper into something that doesn't even concern you. IF you dont like it, then dont buy your child a phone. If that is what I want to do, then shut up, because your opinion on what I do with my children is up to me, not you, thank god.

I'm not trying to present an argument or convince you not to buy a phone or even tell you not to buy a phone you moron. I'm presenting an alternate take on the situation. You obviously have selectively read everything I have posted here today. OH MY GOD !! I DONT CARE WHAT YOU BUY FOR YOURSELF OR A CHILD... I JUST DON'T CARE. I've mentioned this and made it clear on several occasions and I'm not sure if I should try using a different language or what, but you don't seem to grasp English so it may come down to that.

The premise of my opinion is that the odds of this device helping a child is Nil, it could in certain circumstances however even in emergencies only some of these emergencies would present the opportunity to use this phone....
(continues)

If I give you an example of a life and death emergency where a child with a cell phone would be helpful to the situation will you drop your worthless argument?

I have already given two. If they cant read then they dont need it explained to them.

It's not a worthless argument, you can't make that claim because you have failed to miss the point at every turn. Please try and understand this. I will go very slowly so the two of you can attempt to wrap your minds around this. Yes their are situations where a cell phone could make the difference, HOWEVER (thats a big however) the odds of this phone actually being needed an an emergency is very slim. Almost Nil. So what it offers is piece of mind and a direct contact to the child for convenience sake.

If I wore a helmet around everywhere, sure it could save my life at some point, but I don't have to wear the helmet and the odds of it having to preform its intended use are slim and the odds of it actually proving useful in that situa...
(continues)

PLEASE present you me evidence to support the statement of " the odds of this phone actually being needed an an emergency is very slim. Almost Nil."

We havve provided you with evidence, so now it is your turn.

Ok I could clarify and change needed with "used". I argued the semantics of saying the phone protected the child.. so I'll admit that one. the evidence is... drum roll. Common sense !

do you watch FOX News or something ? Children getting into emergencies doesn't happen very often. Ok lets just throw some things out there so maybe you can grasp what I'm trying to convey a little better without nit picking.

- Lets agree that thankfully emergencies, that is, situations where the child is in direct peril or danger, are reasonably rare. The reason I can make this statement is that the human race is still here, and our population is climbing. Agreed? maybe? sort of? OK lets continue...

- Alright, now if your child is involved in one of t...
(continues)

Let me understand your logic.

A lost child is not an actual emergency?

The hole is getting deeper and deeper.

There is no hole. Read the argument and try to understand the logic behind it please, it's not too difficult. No it isn't an emergency, because I was referring to a child just wondering off from the parent, An emergency would be someone near mortally injured or in peril. The child would not be in peril... just the possibility of them getting into such a situation increases. If the child was lost in the woods sure. But the argument remains the same. It doesn't Protect your child, if it gives you peace of mind, by all means. But we don't need to fill people with false hope needlessly. Sure in the ideal circumstances it could come in handy, but were talking such a small percentage here is it really worth mentioning? so it really comes down to P...
(continues)

Like I posted earlier, read my previous posts and you will have PROOF that cell phones have saved lives, including children.

And follow your own words. The logic isn't hard here... You prove to me that having a cellular phone will not possibly help a child in a number of dangerous situations.

And Texas I stand so firm behind my words on this I would be willing to buy BOTH of your children prepaid cellular phones to have for safety. THAT is how serious I am about this. I cant believe that you people would put a price on an innocent childs safety!

Abduction : 2/3 of abductions happen in a snatch and grab type scenario, the child couldn't possibly fight back an attacker in time to have it be any use and the child. Thats not to say that every abduction would be this way. Just in the snatch and grab type situation , which i might add the FBI states the best way to avoid is to have your child subscribe to the buddy system and never be alone. because the VAST majority of abductions happen while the child is alone.

- Look for every scenario that I can put up here to show when it wouldn't help, you could put one up where it would and vice versa. End of story.

It all comes down to what the odds are the a "favorable" emergency (that is to say one where the phone would serve the intend...
(continues)

So let me counter your ONE explaination. The child is "snatched". There is usually a time where the child is left alone of has the ability to use the phone and send a text or make a call. THAT chance my friend could save YOUR childs life.

"There is usually a time when the child is let alone" ?! Are you mad ?

Most child abduction cases end tragically in a matter of hours. This isn't the movies, they don't lock them in a room and think about awful things to do to them or send ransom notes with newspaper clippings. The VAST majority of the time the attacker 'snatched' the child close to his/her home and the abductor's home is also IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. The child is taken to a close local and the whole ordeal is over so quickly it is very common for the parent to not even know the child is missing by the time something very wrong has taken plan. This is a depressing and sobering reality but reality none-the-less.

The situation you speak of where the abductee is left...
(continues)

Who appointed you to be "head definer of emergency situations"?

I want to find them and get appointed to the position of "head football watcher".

Well if you want to redefine emergency thats cool with me. I just picked the definition up from a thing called a dictionary. Now you could possibly find a looser definition in some other dictionary but my trusty Webster's defined it as a situation involving immediate Danger/peril.

Now it's like 6 years old... so maybe the reins have been loosened here on the definition of. But I'm just going to go with it for the sake of the statement.

So if I show you a situation that fits your definition they you will drop your argument?

Of course not because then I could show you a situation that fit's my argument perfectly... then you would show me one that doesn't. Then I could counter that and so on and we would go on like that until our fingers fell off, because it's only limited by our imaginations and of course certain natural laws that I think we can all agree upon.

The respective points would would then render each other moot.

Two major differences here:

You want to make the point that NO situations exist in which a phone could help a child in a true emergency. You hypothesis is easily able to be countered since it is proven false when any example is put forth.

My point is **** happens and I don't care about the cost.

No the point seems to have flown over your head as well. My "hypothesis", heh, in my first statements was that it is folly to think a cell phone offers a child protection, because it does not and cannot, its a phone. It can offer peace of mind.. not protection. If the child holds the phone up to an attacker they are not going to turn tail and run.

My following statement was that yes it can be useful in an emergency, however; the odds of such an emergency arising are very slim and for everyday purposed no different than zero. Key point follows : But that doesn't mean that said emergency cannot happen and the phone will not be useful in certain circumstances.

Now as far as **** happening and not caring about the cost. Cool, man....
(continues)

this would render everything moot

Wake me up...huh?

the scenerio, everything would be moot, i thought youd like to know this.

I don't care!

really

ZombieJ said:
Well then please give us a heads up on why a young child under 10 would need this phone? Is it for at school where they already have security mechanisms.

I think the main point here that we are not agreeing on is that "having this cell phone will actually help protect your child". I say it CANNOT and WILL NOT do anything of the sort. Sure it can make them readily available for the parent to call.. but protect them ... no.

It isn't a security guard, its a piece of plastic. If someone was to try and abduct a child, whats going to prevent this from happening is not the child having a device they must fumble around with while a human 3 times their size is attacking them. Education on how to recog

...
(continues)

I think the point I was trying to make is that there do exist devices specifically for the purpose being discussed. With the frequency in which customers change handsets already what is to expect in the very near future. None of us know what will change and if it does how soon. But in order to do things the best way, match the RIGHT product to a customer. Sure it is fun for all of us to come in here and poke fun at these people for truly believing that their children need full feature phones, but it would be just as good to let the customer know what things are available to suit their needs. And yes, I personally think that it is unwise for a CHILD to have a full feature cellular phone. And that is my opinion, and I haven't tried to force th...
(continues)

HEY! Your not plooky!

But I still value your opinion cuz I like you! 😉

awww...thank you! 🤭

I just thought that a post as beautifully sarcastic as that one required at least ONE reply.

Cres Vanilla Mint. I haven't tried it yet I like the Extreme Mint but the thought of brushing my teeth with what I associate to the taste and smeel of cake batter doesn't sound refreshing. Maybe I will have to give it a try. What do you think about citrus mouth wash?

carefull...that comment about Crest could incite Plooky's wrath! 😲

They haven't ACTUALLY been around forever ya know...... 😳

That is why I said it.

disturbed1 said:
carefull...that comment about Crest could incite Plooky's wrath! 😲

They haven't ACTUALLY been around forever ya know...... 😳

atleast as far as my forever goes they have been around.. 😁

that'll fly with me...but Plooky?

hell, give it a shot just to frustrate him!

🤣

But I heard crest was harmful because of the flouride. You know if you eat a tube per week your teeth could actually rot out instead of becoming a bit more clean.

Cool-aid drinkers!

Damn the man!

You took plooky's line!

What's up with the Kool-aid crap anyway?

Maybe I was absent that day, but I don't get it.

I've got an idea for Bono's next charity concert though.....Plook-aid! Raise money to buy plookster the sense enough to know when to quit.

Plooky talks about it. He thinks that we are just a bunch of young people in here, and I think that is where the kool-aid reference comes from. I know that my intelligence isn't all about my age, so I dont give two-sh*ts about his kool-aid comments or any other comments about age.

OH.....and here I thought it might be something slightly witty, like "drinkin the corporate Kool-aid". Ya know as in brainwashed.

That's what I get for thinkin like a normal human being.

Actually you nailed it. That is the cool-aid reference.

The problem is he swallows just as much cool-aid from the alternate side of the arguments he makes. His constant references to different articles are as much cool-aid filled b.s. as the arguments he "bashes".

I've rarely clicked the links, but I'm sure you're right.

There are about as many BS "scientists" out there publishing bogus studies as there are armchair lawyers in the cellular industry. (think customers who cry "breach of contract" when they can't get their way)

Maybe the Kool-Aid is a Jim Jones reference? You know, put the poison in the Kool-Aid, yada-yada. Damn, that Powers Boothe is a good actor...

Well good then. Im not as insulted I guess.

Referance to 1984 I believe.

Has to do with conspiracy theorists idea that kool-aid is used to drug people into believing falsities as die hard truths.

Fact of the matter is... the only one acting like thay've "drank the Kool-aid" is Plooky. He's the only one spouting off half-truths and bad science as cast in stone truth.

Oh I think the cult that was waiting for the mothership... they were Kool-aid drinkers too. Can't remmeebr their name tho...

Heaven's Gate

And ya think plookster's capable of that kind of coherent thought? Really?

As for bad science...Can't argue there.

If by coherent thought you mean regugitating somehting he once read ina book with words bigger than he could actually comprehend... then yes.

If by coherent you mean automatically judging anyone who challeneges his claims by calling them conformists who beleieve anything they are told then yes.

If by coherent you mean that by his very actions he's a hypocrit in that he in fact teh one who blindly believes what he's told... then..


I think you get my point.

Got news for ya plook, Darwin doesn't work out for humans anymore. We've actually moved to the point (sad as it is) that natural selection just isn't a major factor in human evolution on earth. With medical science such as it is people have been able to prolong life, cure diseases which not 50 years ago were a death sentence, and stave off the diseases which haven't been cured yet. As far as other forces of nature, the only things that have been able to affect any major population change are natural disasters. Even then we multiply and live WAY past the natural limits of our planetary ecosystem.

Think about the millions of people with asthma. 75 years ago those people would have most likely never survived to adulthood due to breathin...
(continues)

I applaud you. So far I feel you are the only person in this forum who is able to keep an intelligent perspective. Many of my replies to Plooky may look like rants but I have not practiced my ability of communicating big words to ignorant people. I hope that he can understand the things you have said and move on.

u guys are the ****......and i know that sentence only has.....(hold on lemme count).....4....no 5 syllables dont let it fool you. im an intelligent bastard stuck with an ignorant toungue that curses and spits a majority of the time.

i dont know how you guys get so much evidence all the time to slam each other. its astounding.
great work. i applaude. keep the show coming.

Just as a little side note on asthma.

It was a virtually unknown disease 75-100 years ago. It could be that people just did not recognize it, however, many are tempted to point to increased pollution and use of chemicals in our atmosphere et cetera as the answer to why asthma has cropped up and become such a rampant problem in this day and age. Inclusive proof on both sides, however I'm more inclined to believe the latter.

THAT WAS GOOD APPLAUSE EVERYONE APPLAUSE
(just in case plooky did not get it lets slow down the bus) plooky what he tried to say is, you are stupid

You sound a bit like Mark Cuban ripping the Dairy Queen employees.

I guess when I started out as a sales rep it must not have been a dead end job. Considering I now own a premier agent location.

The problem people have with you is the arrogance to think that they just haven't thought it all out since they didn't come to the same conclusion as the mighty pooky bear. The "evidence" you site has been proved and disproved so many times not only by industry studies but foreign governments as well.

I could sit in my house all day, afraid to face the world due to all the possible "risks" in life, or I can live my life and not worry (oh no, maybe I can't stay in my house since some study somewhere said my roof shingles might be made of a ...
(continues)

Nicely put. Tex, you know what you have to say.

Well guess what genius if wasn't for us people in this dead end job that requires no education there wouldn't be people like you with wireless phones! Dead end job? I happen to know many people in this industry who have gone on to be very successful - most of which have a college education. Why don't you enlighten us and tell us what you do for a living? Give us a few minutes to tear you down because of the profession you choose. My guess is that you are a bitter and lonely human being. Have a great day!!! 😁 😁 😁

I've asked that question of his several times and he refused to answer.

He probably hates his job more than some of us do. Think maybe he's projecting, or unemployed?

I still wanna know why he's so intent on coming here if he hates cell phones the way he says he does.

The world may never know.......

He's a secret shopper. That's it.

Ick!

BACK FOUL DEMON!!!!! 👿

To me Plooky appears to be a disgruntled, disenfranchised, and totally disengaged individual. He probably worked for a wireless company in 1988 and was laid off because he came to work wearing a tin-foil hat to protect him from RF. Oh well to each his own.

No we'll ditch the cellphones and go back to walkie-talkies...

All of you should read the post called “bluetooth safety” in the techs and trends forem. We debated this ad nauseum, and it would save time to read that beforehand.

Who the hell are you Plooky? To sit their on your high horse and look down on us for having jobs. We work in the WORLD'S FASTEST GROWING industry. At least we are educated about the industry in which we have chosen to work. Also, I don't think God came to the Earth and told you that you had the right to judge any of us. So back the f*ck up. You are a spiteful little wretch that does nothing but spatter mis-information and ignorance around this forum.
You are the epitome of ignorance being bliss. You are trying to compare data that is unfounded (cellular device research) to Mercury poisoning in people. Then you state that the science is inconclusive in both cases. You are one heck of an individual.
What do you consider REAL science? Sci...
(continues)

captainplooky said:
Funny stuff coming from a bunch of people stuck in a dead end job that requires no education other then "training" with little to no hope of a future that they want because it involves too much work and ambition. Read your own posts - the writing is clearly on the wall.

captainplooky said:
Are you truly that arrogant to look your nose down at the decisions/choices of others simply because they are not in line with what you believe to be proper or wise?

A bit hypocritical, I'd say.

i agree, that guy ia not only hipocritical but also an @$$hole what does he know about who is posting here lol, idiot....

captainplooky said:
You can take it or leave it - frankly it is no sweat off my back - Darwin has to take some of us afterall and if it's the lower rung of society - such as yourselves - then by all means - that can only be better for the rest of us.

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine so I have to bring it up. It appears the Darwin comment alludes to "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest", which was actually an ideology coined by Herbert Spencer. If I've misinterpreted this, then my apologies.

He sits outside of big business, probably Cingular corporate in Atlanta, GA and begs for change from all the people who worked their way up from these "dead end" jobs. He's a fool and that is all.

"you are all a bunch on idiots"

You seem to be disagreeing with a lot of people here... Ever consider the possibilities that #1 you are mistaken or the more likely #2 - It's subjective, if you think its necessary then it is... so buy it. No one cares. It's just a bunch of jokes and light hearted ribbing and counter opinions and your the only one perceiving it as a personal attack.

It is a personal attack when people are trying to tell others how they should spend their money and raise their kids.

no no no....this is a personal attack.

IM GOING TO TEAR OPEN YOUR THROAT AND PUT MY EVIL INSIDE YOU.....

holy ****. i guess im bipolar.

lol Sorry kiddies.....im on vacation. FAR THE **** AWAY FROM CINGULAR INBOUND...yet in the heart of their territory, CALIFORNIA bitches. A very friggin long away from South Derkota eh?

But if they don't care about their kids, as many parents don't, then it applies.

Ok this is just getting old now. Honestly, have you read anything I wrote? Seriously, I'm just curious. I mean no offense by this but are you dyslexic? You don't have to answer that of course, I'm just really blown away by the fact you cannot seem to grasp that at no point did I tell anyone how to spend their money or how to raise their kids.

In fact on several occasions I've said the exact opposite. I believe I lamented on about how this was "the free world...", "do as you wish... not saying that kids should not have cell phones or children are more susceptible to cancer...". Then after (or before) saying those things I made a point, perfectly clear, regarding the odds of an emergency happening and on top of that the odds of the em...
(continues)

Those little broken condoms don't need cell phones. They need uzis!!!

Doesn't the NRA own part of Verizon wireless?

But thats what makes it great, Plooky is hillarious. You can spend a good hour or two reading through this post

I don't find Plooky hilarious, I find him snooty, condescending and rude. Most of what he says is wrong with anything anyone else says, he either reprases or cuts down using the same methods. Hypocritical, that's another word.

I can't stand him. (Quote from Singing in the Rain.... in a really nasaly tone.)

Seriously.... I was typing a response, sent it in, and hit refresh... and this UNGODLY long thread jumped to the top of the list...

I'm not even going to try and read it... until OCD kicks in and I can't stand the bold blue text anymore.

captainplooky said:
Funny stuff coming from a bunch of people stuck in a dead end job that requires no education other then "training" with little to no hope of a future that they want because it involves too much work and ambition. Read your own posts - the writing is clearly on the wall.

🤣

I originally posted my comments as a heads up to say "Hey - maybe you should think about this - I'm not the only one who has these concerns and others far more intelligent then me are recommending caution due to the vast amount of unknowns".

You can take it or leave it - frankly it is no sweat off my back - Darwin has to take some of us afterall and if it's the lower rung of society - such as yourselves - the

...
(continues)