Pet peeves I saw today at Magic Kingdom

[grimley1968]

IMO anyone who uses a cell phone jammer has serious passive/aggressive/anger issues that are completely separate from listening to someone else talk on a phone. Getting a thrill by shutting off someones phone without them even knowing it was you is just plain weird. What's next, a little button to shut off cars driven by ugly people or houses with too many lights on? MYOB
This is a general comment, not focused towards anyone on this board.

Amen.

Out of all the pet peeves I've read on this topic (I've actually read every single one of them ), someone who would use a cell phone jammer to block someone else's cell phone call because he deems that call annoying, would probably have to be at the top of my list. I'll admit, I've had some very annoying experiences with people and their cell phones at WDW and in movie theaters, but I can't imagine using a jammer to block their usage. Who in the world is anyone to determine which call is worthy and which one is not?

 

[Nimblethimble]

IMO anyone who uses a cell phone jammer has serious passive/aggressive/anger issues that are completely separate from listening to someone else talk on a phone. Getting a thrill by shutting off someones phone without them even knowing it was you is just plain weird.

I've actually discussed the ethical issue of jamming with my BIL (who I can assure doesn't get any "thrills," when he uses his jammer to prevent the rude and intrusive use of the phones in certain public situations).

I asked him if the jamming -- even when seemingly "justified" in those cases -- wasn't to a certain degree a display of blatant intolerance (I think "passive/agressive" etc. is going a bit far!) He had an interesting response to the question.

Yes, he said, his occassional use of the jammer could be seen as intolerant, but likewise, wasn't the behavior of the cell phone user -- forcing the public to listen to their private conversations -- equally intolerant?

I had to admit is was (and really don't see how anyone here could argue otherwise).

He closed the conversation by saying "in that case, I'm following gospel. An eye for an eye." Personally, I'm not sure I'd use that justification, but I found his "rebuttal" to be insightful. It pointed out there really are two sides to the story, a classic "do-the-ends-justify-the-means" dillemma .

 

[Marseeya]

I've actually discussed the ethical issue of jamming with my BIL (who I can assure doesn't get any "thrills," when he uses his jammer to prevent the rude and intrusive use of the phones in certain public situations).

I asked him if the jamming -- even when seemingly "justified" in those cases -- wasn't to a certain degree a display of blatant intolerance (I think "passive/agressive" etc. is going a bit far!) He had an interesting response to the question.

Yes, he said, his occassional use of the jammer could be seen as intolerant, but likewise, wasn't the behavior of the cell phone user -- forcing the public to listen to their private conversations -- equally intolerant?

I had to admit is was (and really don't see how anyone here could argue otherwise).

He closed the conversation by saying "in that case, I'm following gospel. An eye for an eye." Personally, I'm not sure I'd use that justification, but I found his "rebuttal" to be insightful. It pointed out there really are two sides to the story, a classic "do-the-ends-justify-the-means" dillemma .

So, in other words, if he's sitting next to me in a restaurant and his conversation with his companion is annoying me and interrupting my quiet meal, I can feel perfectly free to go "jam" a sock in his mouth?

That sounds like fun!

 

[Nimblethimble]

So, in other words, if he's sitting next to me in a restaurant and his conversation with his companion is annoying me and interrupting my quiet meal, I can feel perfectly free to go "jam" a sock in his mouth?

I think there's a difference between being "annoyed" by a nearby converstion in restaurant vs. being in the airport departure lounge with some type A executive yelling into his cell phone "TELL THAT SON OF !?@#* TO GET THE CONTRACT SIGNED ETC." The latter is a new and particularly ugly/intrusive form of behavior that has been fostered and enabled by technology. Most people used to some minimal level of public ettiquete. Thanks to Verizon, Cingular et. al, many have now lost that.

And that's evidenced by the fact some of first "pet peeves" mentioned in this thread were ...cell phones!!!!

 

[MareQ]

Yes, he said, his occassional use of the jammer could be seen as intolerant, but likewise, wasn't the behavior of the cell phone user -- forcing the public to listen to their private conversations -- equally intolerant?

I had to admit is was (and really don't see how anyone here could argue otherwise).

IMO this is completely ridiculous. There is NO justification in using a jammer! What does he do when two people are having a face to face "private" discussion that he is "forced" to listen to?? @@

 

[grimley1968]

So, in other words, if he's sitting next to me in a restaurant and his conversation with his companion is annoying me and interrupting my quiet meal, I can feel perfectly free to go "jam" a sock in his mouth?

That sounds like fun!

Seriously, even though Marseeya is joking, this scenario, to me, is no more ridiculous than using a jammer to block others' cell phone calls.

Does this "Walker Texas Ranger" BIL character have some public duty that trumps the 1st Amendment?

Sorry, but the poster's explanation of his BIL's reasoning is troubling, to say the least. It is not an "eye for an eye" to end the conversation of someone you find annoying. The biggest reason it's not an "eye for an eye" is that no one, and I mean no one, is in a position to determine if another person's phone call is important or not. BIL could simply just roll his eyes, assume the call is unimportant and walk away. But no, he had to make the permanent step of ending the call. That's just not right, no matter how you slice it.

 

[TDC Nala]

As far as the cell phone jamming goes, I'd think that maybe "Hello? HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? HELLO?" might be more annoying than the call was in the first place.

And a private citizen can't violate the First Amendment unless he's with the government and is going to arrest the caller because he doesn't like something he's saying.

 

[kimmikayb]

Wow a few things that annoy me!

1) yes I give up my seat to the elderly or anyone older than I am. But I'm not going to give it up to some kid who rode around in a stroller all day long while I walked on my own two legs OR to some kid who thought he was too big for a stroller and really needed one...sorry. People with babies they get my seat, pregnant women they're gonna get my seat, but no kids!

2) I have the right to use my cell phone when I so choose. I talk at a normal decibal so it would be as if I"m talking to a friend standing next to me. If you can handle the sight of me on my cell phone, look away. I know my dad has to bring his for work with him or he can't take a vacation. He has one of those stupid business jobs where his clients and coworkers need to be able to get a hold of him at all times. It is what it is, he'd rather be there with the cell, then back at home.

3) Holding a table is offensive now? There are no signs or rules against having a family member look for a table when another one is on the food line. It's actually common sense.

Wow I think you just need to relax and have a good time instead of stessing about the small stuff! I am now prepared for the rotten tomato throwing that will ensue...

In regards to #1 (and all other posters who have said something about this), one thing you might not realize that yes, that kid might have rode in a stroller all day but at times the bus drivers are a little crazy, fast, stop short, go around corners sharp....and the kids are so much safe in a seat then standing. They loose their balance easy, don't always have the best place to hold onto and are at times very sleepy. It's also easier to keep track of the little ones when they are seated, harder when in the mass of standing people.

Just my 2 cents from a mom who has seen some nasty accidents happen because a sleepy kid was standing.

Personally, my DH and I waited until the line thinned down enough so we could ensure a seat for all of us. Got us back to the resort much later, but seemed the best way to handle it. Also, we must have gone at a great time because on the busses we had nothing but really nice, kind people. I had people help me with my stoller, give up seats, play with my kids, etc. It was really quite wonderful.

 

[apostolic4life]

Let's not let this turn into a real hate-fest. I innocently started this thread with some peeves that I noticed in one day at the Magic Kingdom. What it really comes down to as pointed out by another poster is consideration for your fellow guest, the Golden Rule. Everything I do when visiting a place like MK, I am always asking myself, "Am I or is my family being inconsiderate to other people right now?" It just seems that no one else ever asks themselves that question. It annoys me to spend so much time trying to be considerate of others when a lot of those others are not returning the favor.

If everyone asked themselves that question everytime they interacted with other people, the world would be a much more considerate place.

Remember this one thing; you can only control your own behavior! As long as we all make a point to do just that, we may have a few less pet peeves to gripe about. If we make a point to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, we may just find out our day goes a little better.

We all have, at some point, done something that may have set another park visitor home with a "that stupid guy" story. Most of the time we are completly unaware because we are not "doing something" to someone, we are just not always as focused as we should be. The only way to change the world is to start from an inward look at our own heart!

 

[TDC Nala]

Sorry, parents. Hold onto your standing child. If you ask me nicely and tell me Junior is really, really tired or you have other kids and can't hold onto them all I might give up my seat for him or her. It's up to you to keep your child safe.

 

[MermaidsMom]

I've actually discussed the ethical issue of jamming with my BIL (who I can assure doesn't get any "thrills," when he uses his jammer to prevent the rude and intrusive use of the phones in certain public situations).

I asked him if the jamming -- even when seemingly "justified" in those cases -- wasn't to a certain degree a display of blatant intolerance (I think "passive/agressive" etc. is going a bit far!) He had an interesting response to the question.

Yes, he said, his occassional use of the jammer could be seen as intolerant, but likewise, wasn't the behavior of the cell phone user -- forcing the public to listen to their private conversations -- equally intolerant?I had to admit is was (and really don't see how anyone here could argue otherwise).

He closed the conversation by saying "in that case, I'm following gospel. An eye for an eye." Personally, I'm not sure I'd use that justification, but I found his "rebuttal" to be insightful. It pointed out there really are two sides to the story, a classic "do-the-ends-justify-the-means" dillemma .

What if I decide to subject the public to a bright pink raincoat and your BIL decides he doesn't like the color? Does he get to sneak up behind me and spray paint it green? Kinda like using a little secret button that is hidden away to shut off cell phones? It's wrong. Why doesn't he just walk over to the person who is talking and politely request they speak more quietly? Or consider moving to another spot?

Edited to add: For all he knows it may be the first call someone has gotten from a loved one overseas or in the hospital. Or it could be someone ordering towels from Sams Club. Whatever, it's America and he should leave others alone.

 

[Nimblethimble]

IMO this is completely ridiculous. There is NO justification in using a jammer! What does he do when two people are having a face to face "private" discussion that he is "forced" to listen to?? @@

What is being called "ridiculous" is really a rather interesting ethical conundrum. The above seems to imply that while jamming any conversation is always unjustified, forcing people to listen to any and all private CELL PHONE conversations always is.

That is not a given. Both positions can easily be seen as equally intolerant and intrusive.

As for grimley1968's points, first, the authorities seem to be turning away from the First Amendment when it comes to the desire of private property owners to jam cell phone signals on their property. In many restaurants, theatres and even some churches in this country, you no longer have the inaliable right to employ the airwaves to yack all you want.

As for the jamming of cell calls in public spaces, again, I'm not neither supporting nor criticizing that practice. But be aware that there's a lot more to this than my BIL and his ilk: in both Madrid and London, terrorists set off bombs using cell phone calls as triggers. That has led to serious consideration here and overseas of banning cell phone use on public transit. Yet again, the 9/11 legacy kicks in and trumps social concerns.

Or put another way, don't worry about my BIL, the government will be doing the jamming.

 

[Kath2003]

So, if we can use cell phone jammers, can we now go up to anyone talking when we don't want them to and slap our hand over their mouth to shut them up?

Grow up. You wouldn't stop people having a conversation in a line or on a bus, why the heck should you stop them using a mobile phone?

 

[MareQ]

That is not a given. Both positions can easily be seen as equally intolerant and intrusive.
:

A person speaking on a phone is not intrusive unless it's in an area where it shouldn't be done - like a movie, show etc. Otherwise too bad for you BIL - if he has a problem handling people SPEAKING to other people then maybe he needs to stay home.

Smoking in public is INTRUSIVE to people that don't smoke, especially if they are smoking in areas that are considered to be non-smoking - yet I haven't ever felt the need to carry around a hose so I could put out those offensive butts.... Nope - my solution is to walk away. NOBODY "forces" me to breath in smoke just like NOBODY is forcing your BIL to listen to conversations he doesn't want to listen to @@

 

[grimley1968]

What is being called "ridiculous" is really a rather interesting ethical conundrum. The above seems to imply that while jamming any conversation is always unjustified, forcing people to listen to any and all private CELL PHONE conversations always is.

As for grimley1968's points, first, the authorities seem to be turning away from the First Amendment when it comes to the desire of private property owners to jam cell phone signals on their property. In many restaurants, theatres and even some churches in this country, you no longer have the inaliable right to employ the airwaves to yack all you want.

As for the jamming of cell calls in public spaces, again, I'm not neither supporting nor criticizing that practice. But be aware that there's a lot more to this than my BIL ans his ilk: in both Madrid and London, terrorists set off bombs using cell phone calls as triggers. That has led to serious consideration here and overseas of banning cell phone use on public transit. Yet again, the 9/11 legacy kicks in and trumps social concerns.

Or put another way, don't worry about my BIL, the government will be doing the jamming.

Who FORCES anyone else to listen to their cell phone calls? The answer is no one can force this. Simply walk away, or ask the cell phone user to lower his voice, or just grin, bear it and then vent about it on here. You're using a straw man argument with this point.

On private property owners using jammers to block out guests' phone calls, you need to cite something to back up this claim. I don't know of anyone who does this. Call me naive, but I'm skeptical about whether anyone outside govt. does this. Besides, this is not the point. You brought up individuals using hand held jammers to block up other individuals' calls. This is entirely different than if, say the local church jammed cell phone signals during a funeral. They're not making a decision about whose call is important. They'd just be blocking all traffic of a certain type in their facility. If one wants to make a call, he simply steps off property. This is much, much different than me using a hand held jammer to block that annoying sales pitch over the cell phone. Anyway, without citing specific places that do this, this point is also pretty much a straw man.

And let's not bring in terrorism as a justification for blocking a WDW guests' cell phone call. That is beyond ridiculous when used as a justification for BIL. Just because cell phones have been used to detonate bombs in hot spots around the world, this does not give your BIL, or anyone, the right to end cell phone calls he finds annoying, which is purportedly why he was doing this, right?

If the govt. is blocking potential terrorists' cell phone calls to prevent a bomb from being activated in Iraq or Afghanistan, that is one thing. That, however, is totally unrelated to your BIL blocking cell phone calls he finds annoying.

Here's some advice: when you find yourself in a hole, it's wise to stop digging.

 

[goofy47]

I'm sorry this bothers you. I will sit down at WDW and take off my shoes and socks to give me feet some air cause my feet get so hot. I never try to put them on a seat in front of me and I don't it isn't even good me just doing my above. It's just to really cool off your feet this is the only thing I can do.

I've stripped right down to my undies and gone wading in the Epcot Fountains out side of Spaceship Earth... LOL.... Gee, I don't see a problem with that....... SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Refreshing!! LMAO....

 

[paigevz]

Well, my pet peeve is that folks are in such a gosh-darn hurry all the time that I can't even sit at a table if I'm not eating the WHOLE time I'm there, stop to look at anything without everyone behind me giving me the evil eye for not "moving with the traffic", LOOK at my eggs before I put them on my plate, lean down to LISTEN to something my son is saying, give him a minute to decide if he wants to see that 10 foot tall Mouse or not, or, for heavens' sake, have my dh stand in line while I take my kid to the bathroom!

If they are in that big a hurry, why on earth are they there at busy season when I am?


Also: when people walking beside suddenly decide to dart right in front of my stroller........one guy almost SAT on my son because of that! It also causes the "short stop" and the "running into the back of" that bother so many others. And, backpacks! People aren't aware of that backpack smacking into others all around them whenever they turn. My older son last time was at face level and got smacked twice..........both times, I don't think the people were trying to be rude or anything, but they weren't even aware it had happened......once he was left crying with a huge mark across his cheek.

 

[cornflkgrl]

1. Why do you think it is ok to just stop in the middle of a moving crowd of 1000 people?

2. Can you not put your cellphone down for 2 minutes and actually act like you enjoy taking your daughter on Dumbo?

3. Did you think the "Smoke Only in Designated Areas" rule doesn't apply to you?

4. Could you please figure out what tickets you want to purchase before going up to the counter...in front of me?

5. Monorail or Ferry? Doesn't matter, whichever one I take will break down.


Sorry, just thought I would get that off my chest. Besides all that, I really did have a Magical Day.

Gees, why even bother going anywhere with an attitude like that. Sounds like you hate being around people, in which case you should never go to a major theme park where there are bound to be hundreds of thousands of people doing things that bother or anger you.

 

[cornflkgrl]

in all honesty i think that smoking should just be banned all together at the parks. this park is mainly for kids in the first place and you know they're getting all of that second hand smoke that's just as harmful. and being allergic to tobacco smoke for one doesn't help either.

I'm allergic to smog so I think we should do away with all cars that are not fuel efficient. So no SUV's, mini-vans, hummers etc.

 

[grimley1968]

Gees, why even bother going anywhere with an attitude like that. Sounds like you hate being around people, in which case you should never go to a major theme park where there are bound to be hundreds of thousands of people doing things that bother or anger you.

Geez, why even bother opening a specifically titled "pet peeves" thread with an attitude like that? Sounds like you hate this thread, in which case you should never have opened it and read it. Did you read the dozen or so posts by the OP stating that his trip wasn't ruined, and that this thread was specifically one to list peeves?

If you can't handle a little venting by people, ignore the thread and read the hundreds of other threads that are nothing but positive about the WDW experience. Just because the OP mentioned some specific annoyances with WDW and rude guest behavior, that does not mean he "hates being around people". Also, these boards may be a place for Disney fans, but that doesn't mean we can't criticize at times, along with praise for things done well.