Fewer words are better for phone calls at work
Despite its more than 110 years' existence, our beloved telephone still is technologically in its infancy. Better systems are under development. Available lines are few for the demand and to businesses of all kinds depending on it. It is a costly burden and becoming more so every year.
The purpose of a telephone is to serve as a fast, practical and succinct — repeat, succinct — means of communication. And here comes my request to our young and beautiful girls, ladies and "senoritas" of this country working for dentists, doctors, hospitals, etc.:
Be brief. Don't talk more than needed. Don't clog the lines with chitchats. Avoid telling on it the history of your life or bragging about your latest boyfriend's sex appeal. Customers and patients are waiting and hate to be burdened by one of your most famous idiosyncrasies — talking too much.
Helio Salvador
Greensboro
Comments (18)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Helio,
Kind of a related issue but I get ill when I go to the video/retail/drug/whatever store and the clerk answers the phone to answer some caller's question instead of waiting on me. Heck, I bothered to get in my car, drive to the store, pick out my merchandise and am sitting there waiting to hand the clerk my money, and somebody sitting on their butt at home with a phone in their hand gets precedent?
Kinda like the drive thru window at McDonald's. You go in and it takes you an hour to get waited on because they are waiting on the drive-thru window.
Posted on March 5, 2007 12:22 PM
It has recently come to my attention that the N&R will print any random piece of crap that floats across their inbox.
Posted on March 5, 2007 2:48 PM
Good point. . . I guess. But weren't you just a bit redundant, repetitive, duplicative . . .
Posted on March 5, 2007 4:17 PM
Zounds, Sir! The N&R most certainly does NOT "print any random piece of crap that floats across their inbox."
Denzien, this newspaper is very particular in its LttE selections. And I contend that the N&R prints only the VERY BEST, TOP QUALITY "crap that floats across their inbox."
You own the N&R an apology, methinks.
Posted on March 5, 2007 4:46 PM
"And I contend that the N&R prints only the VERY BEST, TOP QUALITY "crap that floats across their inbox."
And there you have it wrong, my friend. They print only the very best, top quality, totally insane, wildly asinine crap that floats across their inbox.
My mistake. Sorry about that.
Posted on March 5, 2007 4:56 PM
I agree with the assessment of the previous bloggers as to the quality of this letter. I further object to the sexism inherent in it. Does he mean that it's okay for "young boys, gentlemen, and senores" to talk on the phone at work about their personal business as much as they like? I never speak on the phone on personal business at work, and only rarely on work-related issues.
However, it is none of his business how much I talk on the phone outside work. If I want to speak for three hours to someone, well, I'm paying for it. Mr. Salvador, please get a life!
Posted on March 5, 2007 5:30 PM
I think Helio's just ticked off at the phone in general:
"Hello!"
"Hello!"
"Helio?"
"Helio."
"Hello, Helio."
"It's Helio. Hello."
"Helio?"
"HELLO!"
Must drive the man chit-chatty batty.
Posted on March 5, 2007 6:25 PM
So! A duel, eh! I'll teach you to bandy words with me, thou varlet!
The N&R is known far and wide as the most selective, most discriminating, most fastidious selector of Grade A, Number 1, prime, very best, top quality, totally insane, wildly asinine and seriously nonsensical crap that floats across their inbox for LttE publication. No other publication comes even CLOSE to this birdcage liner in the crap printing department.
Top THAT, if you dare!
Hah! I didn't think so! Let that be a lesson to you, Sir!
Posted on March 5, 2007 6:25 PM
Denz & Jack, please tell my your opinions don't include feral cat letters. I would be devastated.
Posted on March 5, 2007 7:07 PM
Yes, Dan, that would be a cat...astrophe.
Posted on March 5, 2007 7:15 PM
And I ain't kitten.
Posted on March 5, 2007 7:16 PM
A purrfect response.
Posted on March 5, 2007 7:41 PM
How dare you scoundrels LITTER this blog with such tripe!
Posted on March 5, 2007 8:09 PM
Off topic, Pragmatist, but I did a bit of research after your February 27 posting, to wit:
“Although neither governor nor general, I think John Larsh would make a terrific president.”
I discovered that John Larsh was a strong community leader in Birmingham, Alabama. He was indeed politically active, but his main claim to fame was as a tenured Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Still, I'm not sure I was able to discern exactly why you felt he would be a terrific president. Perhaps you studied under him and know a good deal more about his qualifications, yes?
But, there's one more detail that seems to complicate matters ... Professor Larsh passed away in November of 2004. Now, I'll admit that many of today's current candidates appear to be in a similar state. And there exist examples of dead folks voting, e. g. Cook County, Illinois in 1960. Further, I'll concede that the departed have, from time to time, garnered a number of votes ... and perhaps even won election to office. Still, I feel that the good Professor might be at a disadvantage with today's “touchy-feely” Presidential campaign style.
And, were he to actually do well enough to be invited to a candidates' debate, either in the primaries or the general election, I do believe even former Vice President Al Gore might score some points against him. That's not to say the the Vice President would “win” in a debate against Professor Larsh, but he would almost certainly take a round or two. And that IS an inconvenient truth.
Posted on March 5, 2007 8:14 PM
These blogs can sometimes induce catatonia.
Posted on March 5, 2007 9:01 PM
Sorry, JA, I should have elaborated:
John Larsh is Jack Armstrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Jack_Armstrong
Different Jack Armstrong, I now know, but you guys think alike, so I thought it might have been the Gorilla.
Posted on March 5, 2007 10:16 PM
Ya know, if THAT Jack Armstrong, AKA John Larsh, and I think alike, then I am inclined to agree with you regarding his suitability to be the Leader of the Free World.
Clearly, he is highly intelligent; an individual of unparalleled insight; fearless, yet compassionate; strikingly good looking; charismatically persuasive; honest as the day is long and well grounded in "Truth, Justice and the American Way."
Oh, and humble. Yes, VERY humble.
Thanks for thinking of me ... uh, him ... us ... as potential Presidential timber!
{Notice that he uses the old-fashioned spelling of his name (the space between the "k" and the "A"). I guess that's how you can tell us apart.}
In any event, I STILL think Professor Larsh from Alabama would best the former VP in debate ...!
Posted on March 6, 2007 3:54 AM
My friend, Jack Gale, hired John Larsh to do all nights at Big WAYS down in Charlotte. Jack called John his "protege" and he IS our very own Jack Armstrong---formerly appearing with The Gorilla in the morning.
Jack,
Do you remember the BWB's ? I never went to one, but salivated at all the talent they were able to assemble. If you were there during the school spirit days, it was my high school tha won the monument in our courtyard from WAYS. That same High School, years later, produced Bill James, and Randy Brazzell of John Boy and Billy Show.
Posted on March 6, 2007 9:28 AM