Skip to content

The Distracted Anti-Conversationalist

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Yesterday during my lunch break I phoned my friend Ted. Our conversation went something akin to the following:

TIM: Hi Ted, It’s Tim Warner. How’s it going?

TED: <pauses>Oh yeah…Hey, Tim, what’s up?

TIM: Am I calling at a bad time? Perhaps we could reschedule this call for later.

TED: <pauses> Ah…no…this is fine. So what’s going on?

TIM: Well, I have some stuff on my mind…<goes into some detail>…

TED: <pauses><keyboard clicking in background> Yeah, right.

TIM: <falteringly>And she said that<more detail>

TED: <keyboard clicking, rattling in background>

TIM: I’ll tell you what, Ted. You sound pretty distracted. Let me call you back, okay?

TED: <laughs>You can tell, huh?

TIM: Yes, sir. I’ll call you later.

TED: Okay, cool. Take care.

How does it make you feel when you get the distinct impression that your conversational partner is giving you about…say…40 percent of his or her attention?

The anemic "Uh-huhs" and "I’m with yous" are no succor for the realization that the person to whom I am speaking maintains a priority on other, non-conversationally related matters.

Look—I understand that I am not the center of the known universe, I truly do. Here’s my suggestion to Ted and his ilk:

If you are too busy to give me your full attention, then freakin’ tell me! I won’t crumple like a poorly baked popover. Get honest with me and stop jerkin’ me around.

When you want to confide in me, ask me a question, or simply engage in simple dialog with me, the very least thing that I can do is to stop my typing, stop my munching—stop whatever it is that I am doing—turn to face you, and offer you my undivided attention.

As I just said, if I am for whatever reason unable to give you my full attention, then I will inform you of that fact and, it is hoped, we can reschedule our conversation for another, mutually convenient time.

Make sense?

Today’s subject, the distracted anti-conversationalist, reminds me of a related peeve, the details of which I shall reserve for another blog post.

Friends, how do you feel about the "call-waiting face-off" (cf. Seinfeld)? Did you ever notice that some conversational partners appear to be constitutionally incapable of ignoring call waiting?

"Uh…Tim, can you hold on a minute? I have another call coming in."

<indeterminate pause>

"Are you there, Tim? I have to go…I have another call on the line."

Now I understand that call-waiting in some cases can serve an invaluable function (family emergencies, job- or project-related calls, etc.). Nevertheless, what kind of message does being declared the loser of a call-waiting face-off transmit to the other person?

Here, I will lead: This action confers the message that the other person calling in–yes, the individual who lodged his or her call to your conversational partner after you initiated the conversation—is somehow more important than you are.

I don’t know about you, but I never want my conversational partner to feel "less than."

What do you think?

Filed in Communications, Etiquette, Rants | | Comments (2)

Privacy Breaches in E-mail Communications

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Hey there. How many times per day do you receive those frightfully annoying e-mail message forwards from family, friends, work associates, et cetera ad nauseam?

In my opinion, the worst type of e-mail forward is the one in which the forwarding author includes all of his or her recipients in the To: address line; this action exposes names and e-mail addresses for everyone’s view and enjoyment. For example:

From: Gregory Stephenson [gstepho@gmail.com]

To: Nigel Tufnel [theoriginals@yahoo.com]; Kathy Gams [kg101@comcast.net]; Big Head Todd [toddrichardwilliams@yahoo.com]; Dick Stillman [thebigdick01@netzero.net]; spanky [debra.watson84@gmail.com]; Teena B. [princessteena@aol.com]; Carmen DeWalliby [carebear1970@yahoo.com]

Cc:

Subject: FW: FW: FW: FW: YES! TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!!

> dreck (address headers, more address headers, etc.) follow here

Although my heart must expand in compassion to embrace the fact that the vastest majority of these inadvertent privacy wreckers have no freakin’ clue how to manage electronic mail communications, the behavior pisses me off nonetheless.

In the fictional example message header blockquoted above, does Greg Stephenson have any idea what I can do with the names and e-mail addresses he so blithely included in his To: line? What if one of those recipients happened to be a celebrity? That celebrity wouldn’t mind li’l ol’ me making an unsolicited introduction, right?

Wrong.

Were I a scam e-mail marketer, having names and valid e-mail addresses is GOLD, friends. The bottom line is that I do not want my name and/or e-mail address bandied about across the Internet without my permission, especially when the communications involve numbskulled time-wasters like "Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can."

The remedy to this problem? It’s two-fold:

1. Stop forwarding electronic junk mail, dummkopf. Think twice before you click Send.

2. If you must send out a batch e-mail message, then place your recipients in the blind carbon copy (Bcc:) address field and place your own e-mail address in the To: field. That way you shield your recipients from each other.

Sound like a plan? Good. I’m glad that I was able to be of service to you today. Go and do likewise.

Filed in Communications, Etiquette, Rants | | Comments (2)

A Cute Li’l Skirt

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Here is a dynamic of North American speech and cultural behavior that I would like for you to consider:

Why is it that so many women use the adjective little or its colloquial contraction li’l whenever they describe material objects, especially items of clothing and personal accessories? To wit:

(Continued)

Filed in Pop Culture, Usage | | Comments (1)

On The Astrick

Monday, June 30, 2008

Oh my—how many times have you observed otherwise well-intentioned individuals commit the following atrocities with the spelling of the noun asterisk?

(Continued)

Filed in Grammar, Usage, Word Confusions | | Comments (1)

An Unfortunate Marketing Jingle

Sunday, June 29, 2008

My wife is a fan of what I call "sugar bread." To my mind, 10 minutes after consuming a slice of white bread you have a wad of almost pure (minus additives and preservatives, fake colors, etc.) wad of sugar sitting in your stomach.

(Continued)

Filed in Pop Culture, Usage | | Comments (4)

Presentation Tip: Incite Collaboration

Friday, June 27, 2008

Considering that two of my most popular posts:

are concerned with public speaking, I thought that I would throw another log onto that proverbial fire.

(Continued)

Filed in Career, Communications, Public Speaking | | Comments (2)

All Verklempt

Sunday, June 22, 2008

One sure-fired way to assist me in making the decision to never again return to your blog would be for you to employ "clever" words like verklempt in your prose.

Check out this Google search—almost 11,000 results! Why is it that some bloggers—perhaps due to their feeling empowered in their Internet anonymity and their easy access to Thesaurus.com—include words like verklempt in their writing as if they actually coined the term?

(Continued)

Filed in Communications, Usage, Word Confusions | | Comments (6)