From: davem@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu (Dave Mentis)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Phone Ettiquette
Date: 6 Apr 92 01:30:46 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Apr02.220427.949449@locus.com> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>In article <4707@umriscc.isc.umr.edu> davem@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu (Dave Mentis) writes:
>
>Dave, we are talking about two entirely different issues.  In the first, I was
>assuming that it was:
>
>Caller:  "Is Mr. Mentis in?"
>Answerer: "Whom shall I say is calling?"
>
>This is considered to be inpolite as it implies that Mr. Mentis is only in if
>you are on his priveleged list of people.  That is the case I was referring to.
>Lots of people take offense at other people considering themselves so high and
>mighty that they won't take a moment to answer the phone.  If you are busy, then
>a perfectly reasonable response from the phone answerer is, "He's busy at the 
>moment.
>

It doesn't necessarily imply diddly. The caller is now assuming their call
is sufficiently important to be treated as an excuse for the answerer / me
to drop everything, or to give an explanation as to why Mr. Mentis can't
come to the phone that satifies the caller. The household receiving the
call would, IMHO, have a better idea as to Mr. Mentis" preference for
answering / not answering at this time. It's impolite of the caller to
assume they know more about my preferences than the answerer.


>The instance you are referring to, however, can also be valid.  I do it quite
>often.  For example, I am about to leave the house but need to talk to Jane.
>I call Jane and am told she isn't in.  When the person asks if they can take
>a message, I generally say, "No, I'll just call back later."  I do this to
>save Jane the inconvenience of calling me and finding me not at home.  It wasn't
>terribly important and I'll try later.  

Save ME the inconvenience of playing constant phone monitor for Jane by
leaving your name / number. Then Jane can, with your help, see that
the 2 of you make contact, to the extent you both deem necessary (the
original point was someone keeps calling every 30 minutes and won't leave
a message...


>
>But you are assuming that the only reason I won't leave my name or a message is
>that I have the most evil of intentions.  Perhaps I don't leave a message 
>because I don't really want to.  I need to talk to Jane.  I'm going to be in 
>and out all day.  There's no need to play telephone tag.

Then be creative. Leave a message indicating not only who you are and how
to reach you, and, the above info -- you'll be in and out...


>
>>
>>As for politeness, since the caller called 1st, let them be polite 1st!
>>Tell me who you are!
>
>But, I didn't call you.  I called your wife.  And perhaps who I am is no 
>concern of YOURS (after all, I don't know who you are or whether your wife 
>wants you to know I called).

You DO know my wife wants me to know, by the fact that I asked, UNLESS,

1) You assume I KNOW she doesn't want me to know, and am prying anyway.
   Now who's assuming evil intentions ?

2) I THINK my wife wants me to know, but you know better. Pretty damn 
   presumptious on your part. I've been married to the woman 12 years
   and we've decided to spend a lifetime together and now I should 
   assume some unannounced caller knows more about what my wife wants
   me to know than I do!!



>>
>>I didn't buy the machine or get the phone to be obliged to answer it.
>>
>
>But if you DO answer it and the phone call is not for you, why must you INSIST
>on screening the calls for whomever the call is for?  Isn't that a bit nosy
>and presumptuous of you?

In our marriage, her business IS my business, and vice versa!
We have no secrets.

Why must you INSIST that a caller who hasn't given the answerer a clue as to
who they are or what they want should know more about what my wife wants than
I do, or that they are going to be more faithful towards executing my wife's
wishes than I am ?  (See above).

The only people who I suspect know my wife's wishes as well as I do are
my inlaws. This doesn't apply to them as they can call anytime and needn't
announce themselves -- I know them by voice, and I consider myself as
having 4 parents, the distinction is only made for others in discussion
for clarity as to whom I'm referring to...


>
>But MOSTLY we are talking about ettiquette.

True.

  -- davem@cs.umr.edu  (Dave Mentis)