[sarcasm]
Amen! I feel the exact same way about drinking and driving. Each individual should have enough respect for everyone else to not drive drunk if it impairs their ability to drive properly. If I can drive properly AND be drunk, I should not be punished because some other fools can't handle it.
[/sarcasm]

And how do you guys propose to judge who can and who can't? Standardized testing of reactions after putting away a 12-pack?

Personally, I feel like I'm able to decide who needs killin' and who doesn't. It pisses me off when people who obviously can't make that decision, go out and kill some one.

You observe them. If they are weaving into other lanes, not signalling when they turn or change lanes, following too closely, etc, then you have a problem that should require that they be stopped. I don't have a problem with a legal BAC limit being set, as long as it is scientifically based on a level that would indicate intoxication of an average person. If they consent to a field sobriety test and fail, that would be evidence against them as well. I don't necessarily believe that BAC by itself should be cause for arrest, if you are otherwise operating the vehicle properly and safely. In other words, there should not be roadblocks just to smell for alcohol. You should have some other cause to stop a vehicle.

The same goes for cellphones. Merely talking on a cellphone should not be cause for presumption that you are about to have an accident or hit a pedestrian. You should have to demonstrate an inability to properly drive the vehicle before a crime has been committed. It's not really that hard to figure out, is it?

No one can drive properly and be drunk.

That was my point (and why I labeled the post as sarcasm).
Everyone is convinced that they are not the problem because they can operate a car safely while drunk, on a cell, etc.

Alcohol reduces reaction times and leads to more aggressive driving. It's proven time and again. The laws are meant to be preventative as well as punitive. Meaning that they want you off the road before you do something stupid, not afterwards.

you just described every driver in eastern massachusettes, please contact dipshit romney and have him enforce this...PLEASE!

See this is the real problem. Ignorant gits like this who THINK they can do something that cannot be done.

If your attention is anywhere but the road, you're not driving properly OR safely.

please figure this fact out.

I do happen to think that a big problem with drivers is the fact that simple traffic violations are ignored. Drivers get accustomed to inching into intersections, making improper lane changes, improper turns, pulling into crosswalks, and so on, to the point that they actually believe those demonstrate proper driving techniques. Then, you add in a cellphone to a driver who is already pushing the envelope and neglecting all the details and you have a recipe for disaster. If they were already conscientious drivers, they would not suddenly kill someone by simply introducing a cellphone. As drivers who paid attention to the details, they wouldn't use the phone if they felt it impaired their ability to maintain that standard.

It doesn't help that I see police officers committing traffic violations everyday that I am out on the roads, either. Nobody is setting a good example for these drivers who probably learned from parents who were constantly breaking rules as well.

Why do you think parents did not bring up their kids with a sense of respect and responsibility that would prevent them from ever considering such activity? I would never drive drunk. I'm wondering where my parents succeeded and so many have failed.

I'm telling you, these things are a problem.

---------------------------------------------------

Cell Phone Users Interrupt Sex for Phone Calls


hxxp://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/cell_sex.html


April 11, 2005
Fourteen percent of the world's cell phone users report that they have stopped in the middle of a sex act to answer a ringing wireless device, Ad Age reported.


The highest incidence of cellular interruptus was found in Germany and Spain, where 22 percent of users interrupted sex to answer their cell phones; the lowest was in Italy, where only 7 percent reported doing so. In the U.S., the figure was 15 percent, the magazine said, citing a study conducted by BBDO Worldwide and Proximity Worldwide.

"People can't bear to miss a call," said Christine Hannis, head of communications for BBDO Europe. "Everybody thinks the next call can be something really exciting. And getting so many calls proves social success," she said. "It fulfills a fundamental insecurity."

More than half of the respondents, 52 percent, said they used a mobile phone to flirt.

"And getting so many calls proves social success"


I thought having sex proved social success?

If a girl ever did this to me I would get dressed and leave. Or, if it were my house, I'd turn on the tv and wait for her to leave.

I just wouldn't stop. Make her scream....

blah blah blah cell phones are evil blah blah blah

You used to be such a tender young pea. Now you are an angry old dried up rutabaga. Wha happa!!!???

I have a feeling that this guy wouldn't approve of me driving while playing my guitar, either.

RendeR, you left off "Stop masterbating in rush hour traffic."

Unless it's a woman, I usually enjoy that a bunch. :D

Thanks for the lecture Mr. Perfect. I'm sure you've never done anything while driving that distracts you from the road - fiddling with the radio, inserting/removing CD's from the CD player, talking with your friends in the passenger seats, reaching over to the passenger seat to grab something, etc. We should probably write specific laws forbidding all of these activities as well, right?

I have no doubts that talking on a phone while driving limits your reaction time - that's not in question. I do question the contention that talking on a phone is worse than talking with a passenger - neither of the linked studies explained the research that purportedly comes to this conclusion. I also question the methodology of many of the studies, as I think the way they conducted their experiments are poor cyphers for the real thing and as such are severely flawed in the relevancy of their conclusions.

Here's the thing though - while we are all impaired a certain amount by any task that distracts us while driving, we are not all starting from the same level of driving skill. A good driver who's driving and talking on a cell phone may still be better than a horrible driving paying full attention to the road.

Don't mistake this defense of driving while talking on cell phones to mean I think it should be done willy-nilly - there are times where it's much more dangerous than others.

I would also concur with others that as a society, we haven't yet developed good manners with how to integrate cell-phone usage into the public arena. I get just as pissed as anyone when I see obnoxious cell-phone behavior. In time though, I think we as a society will adjust and adapt such that typically rude behavior with cell-phones becomes less common.

You realize that EVERYONE thinks they can drive and talk on the cell phone at the same time, yes?

I think the real problem is people who use British English slang in American style writing. :p

I won't insult anyone's intelligence by trying to say so. I've done stupid things just like anyone else. I will not however defend bringing another distraction, especially one that is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY IN A CAR.

People say they have to deal with work, bullshit, deal with it from the side of the road. if you think YOUR job is more important that someone else's LIFE then you're a bigger fucking loser than I would have assumed from seeing you use your self indulgent toy while trying to drive your car along the freeway.

Get a god damned clue people, You do NOT have to be in contact with anyone ALL the time. Grow the fuck up and show some fucking responsibility.

Subby: Eat shit, I've always been an angry old fart. I'm sick to death of people trying to defend human stupidity. You more than most it would seem.

Skydog, Don't be an Ass, its really not your forte

Desnudo: I picked up the slang IN the UK, so I figure I qualify. Don't like it, fucking ignore me then and my language won't bother you any longer.


Somtimes you people seriously piss me the fuck off.

God DAMNIT...stop making me sound like a parent.

You should turn that rage into something productive.

Like Ice Dancing!

You don't sound like a parent. Maybe someone with anger management problems. And great, I've been to the UK too, but I don't walk around calling everything bloody. And I could never ignore you, baby.

I will reiterate - just because some people are awful drivers to begin with and can't afford any distractions while driving shouldn't force others that have a clue while driving from being able to use their cell-phones when it's not a bad time to do so.

If you're going to create specific legislation outlawing talking on a cell-phone while driving then I want to see specific legislation outlawing reading the newspaper while driving, shaving while driving, applying makeup while driving, eating while driving, having an animated conversation with passengers while driving, etc.

Or, we could simply use the existing laws that allow police to ticket drivers for reckless or inattentive driving and go after the people that are hazards without forcing those of us that can manage both tasks competently from being able to do so.

Music isn't necessary in a car. So stop fiddling with your radio or CDs while driving, you unsafe driver :p.

Don't know if they're in your area but Speakeasy is one DSL that will let you do DSL without phone line. Of course, their price is fairly expensive (at least in my opinion).

First, I can't believe that nobody else has praised this joke! :D


I think that behind the excess anger, RendeR makes some good points. Very few cell phone calls that are made while driving can be considered even remotely "necessary". In isolated circumstances, such as if you are reporting an accident or a drunk driver or some other emergency, using the cell phone while driving can be considered a reasonable thing to do (although pulling over before using the phone would be preferable).

As a rule, I think that talking on the phone is more distracting than talking to someone else who is in the car with you. Fiddling with buttons, trying to hear and be heard, yada yada yada - it can't help your driving. I also think that people enter a semi-hypnotic state when talking on the phone that they don't get into in a conversation with a person sitting next to them. They're trying to picture the person they're talking to, picture what the person is talking about, etc. At the very least, a passenger provides another set of eyes to watch the road, while the person you are talking to on a cell phone doesn't -- unless they happen to be in the car with you, in which case you are probably a simpering moron who should never drive a car anyway...

In the end, I see cell phone use while driving as just another example of people simply choosing to follow their own selfish motives and do whatever they feel like, regardless of any compelling evidence that might be presented that their course of action is not the wisest choice for them personally nor the safest option for everyone that they encounter on the road. I personally never talk on the phone while driving, and would favor any law that restricted other drivers from doing so. Drunk driving was once acceptable, but is now viewed as unlawful. I'm hoping that society will soon begin to realize that talking on the cell phone is just as bad and create laws to deal with the problem.

In the meantime, while I wait for the cell phone laws to materialize, I will just have content myself by listening to my beloved SUV drivers bitching about the skyrocketing costs of gasoline. :)

Hmmmmm....you and Kodos seem to think that I was kidding. Interesting.

The point about a passenger being an extra set of eyes is a good one, but otherwise I'm yet to be convinced that a conversation on a cell-phone is any more distracting than one in a car. With a hands-free device for your phone, a person talking on the phone while driving can keep his eyes on the road (and checking the speedometer and rear-view mirror). There's a tendency when talking to passengers to occasionally make eye contact. And unlike a phone conversation, where if things get heated and emotional you can hang up, you're stuck with your passenger.


Let's be clear here - we haven't outlawed driving by people that have been drinking - we've set a certain level of sobriety as the benchmark. Depending on your body chemistry, you can have a drink or two or three depending on the situation (and the length of time over which you consume) and still drive legally.

My point remains that not all drivers start off on equal footing. Some can better afford to handle distractions while driving or to have had a drink or two and still drive - others can't. A former girlfriend of mine fully admitted her poor driving skills and because of that wouldn't ever drive after having a drink, as she couldn't afford any loss of dexterity. Unfortunately, many bad drivers are oblivious to their poor driving.

For my part, if I'm driving after having had something to drink, or if I'm driving while talking on the phone, I'm conscious of the fact that I need to pay as much attention to the task of driving as I can as well as being cautious and safe - not speeding at all, keeping a very safe following distance, etc. I have no doubt that compared to being fully sober and not talking on the phone, my reaction time is diminished, but I also don't think I'm a major safety hazard either.

Let's face it - driving carries safety risks. There is no perfectly safe solution to several thousand pound objects travelling at high speeds with full freedom of movement. We allow for some compromises of safety in the interests of personal liberty.

I don't particularly care whether this is made illegal or not, since I lay on my horn and flick off these jerkweeds who cant drive and talk at the same time.

Now there are plenty of bad drivers on the road but cell phone users are notorious for (a) being a bit out of their lanes on the highways and (b) not having any idea of how slow they are driving on the highway. Pretty dangerous stuff here, and I am sure they don't realize it and think they are capable of driving perfectly fine...I mean who continues to have their left wheels in my lane while going 48 mpg on the highway on purpose?

Either way, I let them know how they are driving with a polite beep of the horn, or polite middle finger. :)

I just got a Blackberry. Pretty damn cool. Now, instead of just talking on the phone while I drive, I can read email and surf the internet.

And there's the rub. While I respect your opinion, I totally disagree.

Personally, for whatever reason, talking on the phone requires a significantly different type of attention than conversing in the same room. Maybe that's not true for everyone, you in particular, but to say that they are identical in my case is stating something that is factually wrong. I think that phone attention is much more driven by the reception, perception, or whatever of a signal, whereas conversing is direct and more pervasive.

This post intentially left blank.

Here's an idea - how about instead of outlawing talking on phones while driving, we require the cell-phone companies to subsidize ad campaigns emphasizing the safety risks of talking on the phone while driving, promoting safer behavior and suggesting people think twice before making or answering a call while driving. In addition, let's promote to traffic cops that they increase an emphasis on busting drivers for poor driving, especially targeting cell-phone users.

This would help in shaping public behavior while still allowing some freedom for those that have a need for doing both or are better able to handle this multi-tasking.

Because, after all, it's all the evil corperation's fault.

That's not it at all. Cell phone service providers and phone manufacturers do have a vested interest though in whether cell-phone usage is kept legal while driving. Providing public service ads could be a way to fend off legislation that outlaws the practice altogether.

People are too busy talking on their cell phones to pay attention to the ads.

Then why punish them by forcing them to fund an ad campaign?

I'm not saying the government should force them to do anything. I'm suggesting that it might be in their best interests though to be proactive on this issue.

No, what you said was


It's pretty cut and dry. "we require the cell-phone companies". Requiring the companies to do something would mean a law enforced by the government. You didn't say "they should do this for their own good", you basically said they should be made to it. That's two different things.

The alien is wise in many ways :)

SI

No, he isn't. He thought I was joking about driving and playing guitar. He ain't THAT wise. :p

He's also unwise in many ways, but he's wise in some ways, too :p

SI

I love this solution: It makes absolutely no sense. Why is it in their interest to do something like this? People will cell phones won't care, people without won't buy. Why is it in their best interests? Sure, it's in the public's best interest but I'm pretty sure the number of times completely altruistic motives have come up in large corporate boardrooms in the last twenty years can be counted on one hand.

SI

You're correct - I said "require" when what I was more accurately thinking was "strongly suggest".

Do you object to beer companies making commercials discouraging teenage drinking and drunk driving, or tobacco companies making print ads describing the health effects of smoking? Are these unfair burdens on those industries?

It's not directly the fault of cell-phone manufacturers or service providers when idiot drivers cause accidents while talking on a cell-phone, but it's something that is affecting the public image of their industry. If they were to produce ads that promoted safer, more responsible use of their products (as well as more consideration when in public) they could improve their image an perhaps realize longer-term financial rewards if certain segments of the population reduced their annoyance with cell-phone behavior.

It makes no sense for the cell-phone industry to promote more responsible use of their product? Have you read the vitriol in this thread towards cell-phones?

What we have is a technology that is still in its youth, and we as a culture have been slow to adapt and adjust to accommodate the changes that mobile telephones bring to public behavior. There are segments of the population that have developed a dislike of cell-phones beyond any practical reasoning but is based on a dislike of the behavior of those with the phones.

While there are any number of individuals bitching about the effect of cell-phone use on both driving and in terms of public courtesy, an ad campaign by the industry could provide a more structured and unifying message to the public. I don't expect such a campaign would have a huge immediate impact on behavior, but I think it would accomplish the following:

1. Show the public that the industry is aware of the problems that many have with their product and that they care about responsible usage;
2. Start a more public discourse on these issues, and provide the perception that the industry is willing to work with its critics;
3. Long-term, I think it could help speed up the way our culture adapts to cell-phones and what is considered appropriate usage
4. Also long-term, if the campaign was successful in helping shift our cell-phone habits and in conjuction with improving their public image, it would lead to penetration into a greater percentage of the public and thus more revenue

Do you think the beer company ads regarding teenage drinking and designated drivers has had no positive impact?

There you go. Much better.


If they are forced to do it, then yes. If they do on their own, then no because they are doing it to themselves.

I don't believe the beer companies are being "forced" to produce those ads, but I think they were "strongly encouraged" in the wake of the Spuds McKenzie ad campaigns (in the case of teenage drinking). I'm not sure if groups like MADD and others brought about the decision to produce the designated driver ads, but I think it was a good, practical decision.

And you missed my point entirely. Yes, it's good for society as a whole. But this has the problem of statements like "my baseball team should pay $12M for an ace starting pitcher" and then they get upset when you sign Pedro or someone because everyone has question marks and there's no such thing as a perfect ace. Or the "music companies just need to set up a new business model for mp3's"- I doubt the record companies are running out there to try and develop a new model when their current one still makes them money.

In the same vein, if you go and propose this to, say, Verizon, they're going to look at you and laugh. Sure it benefits society, but how does it benefit them? Why would they want to do it? It makes them marginal money at best. Whereas the downside is that those advertising spots could better be used to steal customers away from Nextel and Sprint. If you were running the company solely for your shareholders (and thus personal weath) as most are these days- which would you do? I'm not saying it's right but, it's a pie-in-the-sky idea that is idealistic but not realistic.

SI

I didn't miss your point, I disagree with you. And I think you're overlooking my point - if things continue as they are in the arena of public opinion, talking on the cell-phone while driving, even while using a hands-free device, may become illegal in many areas. This will hurt the cell-phone industry (more in image than anything else).

A proactive ad campaign on this matter could forestall such legislation from passing as well as improve their public image, which would pay off down the road in increased revenue. You seem to be looking at the issue in an extreme short-term cost/benefit manner, while ignoring the longer term potential benefits.

I waited until the young age of 37 before I got my first cellphone....(shrugs)

the scourge of society


----------------------------------------
Cell phone addictive for users


By Cynthia Hubert
Sacramento Bee


SACRAMENTO -- Sergio Chaparro's information-technology students had more than just a healthy attachment to their cell phones.

When he asked them to shut them off for three days, they panicked.

"They were afraid. They were truly afraid," Chaparro, then an instructor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, recalled of the assignment last year. "They thought it was going to be a painful experience, and they were right."

Only three of about 220 students managed to complete the assignment.

To Chaparro, now an assistant professor at Simmons College in Boston, the experiment confirmed what he strongly suspected was a widespread psychological dependence on cell phones.

"I think it's critical that people realize their level of dependency, and possibly do something about it," he said.

Business executives. Soccer moms. Travelers. Teenagers. All of them adore their cell phones. But when does love turn into addiction?

A Korean study recently found that nearly a third of high school students showed signs of addiction, including paranoia, when they were without their phones, and two-thirds were "constantly worried" that they would miss a text message when their phones were off.

In Britain, researchers concluded that people are so intimately connected with their cell phones that they see them as "an essential item, an extension of self."

"No other medium has infiltrated society so widely and so quickly" to alter lifestyles, and "no other portable medium is used so frequently," wrote researchers for Teleconomy Group. They surveyed 210 consumers about their use of mobile phones.

Here in America, research on emotional attachment to cell phones has been sparse. But Joseph Tecce, an associate professor of psychology at Boston College, said it is a rich field to be mined.

Like substance abuse, Tecce said, excessive use of cell phones can lead to personal problems.

"If you try to exert control over your use of the phone and you can't do it, that's dependence. That's addiction," said Tecce, who studies "psychobiological behavior" including addictions and phobias.

"People who instantly reach for the cell phone every time they feel uneasy or anxious about a problem are relying too much on it," he said.

Ultimately, said Tecce, such behavior undermines self-reliance and reduces self-esteem.

"Like many rewarding experiences, leaning heavily on cell phones for advice or psychological nurturance is effective in reducing anxiety in the short term, but harmful in the long term," he said.

"How? By taking away control of one's behavior and placing it in the hands of others. After all, a problem might arise without a handy cell phone, and then helplessness rules the hour."

Too much yapping on the cell phone, Tecce added, also can lead to "a constant state of distraction" that "takes away a key component of happiness, the pleasure of total absorption of one activity to the exclusion of everything else."

Tecce recommended that cell- phone abusers "put themselves on a quota system, either so many minutes per day or so many calls per day" in an effort to break a serious habit.

Dependence on electronic devices is hardly limited to cell phones, said Bill Lampton, a communications specialist and author in Georgia. Electronic mail, he said, is equally addictive.

"Not long ago, my e-mail system was down for 24 hours," recalled Lampton, author of the book "The Complete Communicator."

"How did I feel? Isolated, marooned, in a sense almost rejected because I couldn't contact business and personal associates."

As for the cell phone, "It's not an exaggeration to say that it has become our contemporary pacifier," Lampton said. "As long as we're holding it, we don't show signs of unrest. "The difficulty comes when we lose our perspective on a tool that we're supposed to control -- not let control us."

David Mullinax, a lobbyist who does business in Santa Barbara and Sacramento, admitted an addiction to his BlackBerry, a wireless gadget that, among other things, transmits e-mail.

"Absolutely," he said. " 'Crack'-Berry' is appropriate nomenclature."

Despite his attachment to the device, Mullinax said, it often makes him feel "bludgeoned with information overload" and ultimately feeling "weak and ineffectual."

"It's like being caught in a wave and being tossed around like a rag doll, unable to control where you're going and not able to assimilate the information into anything truly worthwhile," he said.

"Society as a whole has created a dependency," he said. Marketing of cell phones is relentless, and access to pay phones and other "land lines" is growing more and more limited, Chaparro noted. So people feel they "have" to carry cell phones. And once they do, they tend to overuse them.

In his class last year, Chaparro said, he learned "amazing things" about the cell-phone culture of his students.

"For most of them, the phone was a lifeline in many ways," he said. "I had one student who went on a spring break trip to Florida, lost her cell phone, and her mom had to FedEx another one from home right away. She said, 'I didn't feel secure, Sergio. I couldn't even call to rent a car.'"

Against his better judgment, Chaparro said, he recently broke down and bought a cell phone for himself.

"And let me tell you, it's addictive," he said. "I have the very simplest one, the cheapest one ever, no camera, no text, nothing. I pay the minimum. But sometimes I feel I can't leave home without it."

hxxp://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050607/LIVING/506070340/1007

It doesn't sound very scientific- more anecdotal and sensationalized. However, I suspect that a more scientifically rigorous test would conclude the same thing.

SI

Cell phone companies must be ecstatic.

I was going to bump this thread to mention that I think this problem would basically be solved if everyone who used a phone in the car was required to either be parked somewhere or using a hands-free system installed in the car.

My new car comes with HFL (Hands Free Link), a Bluetooth-enabling device that automatically synches with my phone everytime I get into the car (with the phone, of course!). There are two buttons on the steering wheel that control the HFL - one to initiate a call, give voice commands, etc., and the other to end a call or start over. I have programmed about 20 numbers into the car's memory, and all I have to do is say "phone home" and a pleasant lady asks me to confirm who I want to call and then dials the number for me. Or, if all I have is a number to call, I simply say "phone 18505555555" and it dials it for me. This system is probably more integrated with the car than an after-market system you would have installed, but I assume the features are pretty much the same. I never have to take my eyes off the road or my hands off the steering wheel.

I think this would pretty much solve the problem. At that point, you're basically no different than someone who is changing a radio station, inserting a CD, changing the temperature, etc., in terms of activation of the phone, and no different when talking on the phone than someone carrying on a conversation with other people in the car (or with themselves, or singing, etc.).

Is your car named KITT?

That's the nickname we gave it (predictably).

I bought a Blackberry about 2 months ago and didn't even think about Bluetooth because I had nothing that I could use it with. I didn't realize until the day or so before I took delivery of my car that my phone was Bluetooth-capable. As nice a car as it is, that was just icing on the cake, to sit in the driveway and call my parents with the family in the car, and to have the car as basically one large speaker phone to announce our purchase. You talk and listen through the speaker system, and now I don't miss calls because I have the stereo on 30 - it automatically interrupts the music and displays the number calling in. It's pretty impressive. Especially since the freakin' thing actually works!

you should have taken part in the study.

I really don't feel like I need a Blackberry, but I got one because it really didn't cost that much and even with the email/browsing service I pay for, I'm still paying less per month than I did on my old phone plan. But it's nice to be able to read email whenever I want.

they just suck you right in

Basically. Actually, I got it because my boss has one and felt like I needed one as well. I guess so he can email me at 10:30 at night and expect me to answer. One thing it can't do is alert me to email from the off position, though. :)

you've been warned

Calling people through the car is more addictive than the Blackberry itself. In fact, every time my daughter is in the car, she insists we call someone.

My cell phone is never on unless I am placing an outgoing call. Which can be as few as 1 or 2 times a month. I'd say I'm not addicted just yet. :)

A healthy dislike for the general population probably helps. :D

I think the vibrate feature is what makes most cellphones addictive.

Of course I carry mine around in my buttcheeks, so maybe it's just me.

Nice, someone else who shares my feelings. I'd ask you to be my friend, but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't like each other. :)

The feeling that these people get when they can't use their phone is the same feeling I get when I have to use my phone. I like to have it for emergencies, but that is about all I use it for.

I would be afraid and I know it would be a painful experience because my girlfriend would kick my ass if she wasn't able to get ahold of me for three straight days...

I think Chicago passed a law similar to this..from what I recall, the law they passed said it was illegal to have your hands on a cell phone while driving a car. I've heard that most accidents dealing with cell phones occur while the driver is looking at the phone to dial, so that makes sense. I know that I don't have a problem with talking on my headset -- it's almost better than talking to a person in the passenger's seat, since in that case, I'm more likely to turn my head to the side.

I have a friend like this with his wife. I don't know how he can put up with it. She calls at least 5 times a day in the sense that that's how many I see if I'm over there for a couple of hours, probably more like 10 or 15. Now, I think whipped is a strong and harsh word, but wtf could possibly be so important that you need to be tied to that like a security blanket/noose.

SI

Well, she's not that bad, but if she can't get ahold of me when she wants to she starts to freak out. One night I was over at a friend's house late at night and left my phone in my car. When I left around three AM, there were eight...count em, EIGHT messages on my cell.

But that's an extreme case...

This is like deja vu all over again.