Durham Giant wrote:
So when you put this in your post in a quote box 2 posts back this is not a made up quote ?
No. It is taking the pis5.
Durham Giant wrote:
FA Quote:I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't. The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered.
Which clearly shows that you are redefining the definition of a prank call in your head to justify your position.
Not a bit. I merely point out the (very great) difference between this prank call, as opposed to other prank calls.
Durham Giant wrote:
In your world you rule it out as a prank call ...
No. I don't. What you are again somehow conflating is the various stages of what happened.
(a)
callers with funny accents talk to receptionThis bit was recognisable as a pretty straightforward prank call
(b)
callers get second nurse to breach patient confidentialityIn my book, that bit cannot be dismissed as a prank. The presenters no doubt intended it to be, and presumably due to youth, inexperience and getting giddy in the moment, they did it. They now regret that.
(c)
radio station incredibly makes the considered decision to broadcast the recordingTo broadcast the first part, they would have needed the consent of Mrs. Saldanha and her employers, but they did not get it. To broadcast the second part, (leaving aside the question of criminal offences) they would have needed the consent of the second nurse, the hospital and the patient, but they did not get it.
For convenience and shorthand, we refer to the whole incident as 'the prank call'. But the combination of (b) and (c) is what I have an issue with. And also why this prank call was different from a typical prank call.
Also for completeness, whilst I am replying, I'm almost certain that these points did not escape you. I reply just in case they bizarrely did.
Durham Giant wrote:
In your world you rule it out as a prank call ...
No I don't, however many times you pathologically lie that I did.
Durham Giant wrote:
...because
The Truth is revealed afterwards
The radio station stated very clearly they tried to contact the hospital 6 times to do exactly what you asked.
The hospital say the radio station never spoke to them. I have no reason to doubt it, do you? If they "tried", that indicates they knew they should; so if they failed, why not wait until they succeeded? I find it is not hard to get through to any hospital I've ever tried to ring.
I presume as evidence they have tapes of these attempts to get through? (I refuse to believe that they made five or whatever proper efforts to phone, but nobody picked up.
Durham Giant wrote:
The listeners when it was introduced knew it was a prank call
Quote: humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person.
Again your interpretation . The humour could also be in the ludicriousness of it all, the funny accents, the cheek of laughing at the establishment.
It could be, but all this misses the point. It is NOT FUNNY to get a nurse to reveal confidential patient data.
I should interject here that, contrary to your implication, I have already agreed that, had the "funny accents" etc led merely to an exchange between presenters and reception, and she had twigged, and eventually terminated the call, then some may have found it funny; I didn't, but that's not relevant. No harm would have been done. The call would be a self-contained prank, and provided the nurse and hospital agreed to it's transmission, then would all have been hunky dory.
But this was not a prank call like any other prank call. As I keep saying.
Because the presenters fooled the first nurse, and got put through. THAT is where the joke, such as it was, ends and where the call clearly should have ended.
Receiving confidential patient information by deception is not a prank, it is an offence, and it isn't funny. It doesn't matter who the patient is.
So they should not have carried on and done that but, again as I have said, I do not particularly blame them as clearly they didn't think on their feet, and made the wrong decision. But the radio station, OTOH, made the considered decision to broadcast despite the plain breach of patient confidentiality and despite the lack of any consent.
And even if they had broadcast without consent, I would suggest no harm would have befallen Mrs Saldanha,
if she had not been fooled, and had not put the call through to anyone, even if using the material without her consent would be pis5poor behaviour.
Durham Giant wrote:
Quote: Here, though, the pranked person was never considered.
Yet you do not know this. It may have been considrered but ignored. But in your world your interpretation is all that matters.
I don't know it, but 'considering but ignoring' would in my book be far worse than not having considered.
Durham Giant wrote:
None of these mention your charcteristics as being defining of a prank call.
Which definition says a prank call can cause a nurse to divulge confidential patient information?
Durham Giant wrote:
Now if you had said
Quote: FEROCIOUS AARDAVARK SHOULD HAVE SAID I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't, BASED ON MY DEFINITION OF A PRANK CALL The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered.
I could have agreed with your post.
This is odd. I gather from that, the penny has finally dropped and you now almost understand my point. But I am not trying to define or redefine a prank call, which would be neither sensible nor necessary. I am pointing out why this prank call was different from your average ranch stash prank call.
I said what the joke "in most prank calls" is. The use of the word "most" clearly allows for the existence of other types of prank calls, and therefore, by definition, is not an attempt at a definition. Even to a word-twister like your good self.
But I do note that, in any case YOU AGREE with what you see as my "definition"; so it turns out you ONLY objection is you thought I was offering a dictionary definition of "a prank call", despite my use of the word "most". You have kicked up an argument over what turns out to be yet another failure to properly read my words. Well done.
Durham Giant wrote:
Still in Aardvark world albeit not in the real world you are always right. I suggest you discuss this with your psychiatrist.
It seems to be very important to you to end your posts by referring to "my psychiatrist" or some such. Does this reveal some sub-conscious need to self-congratulate your own posts by self-declaring some imaginary victory, and repeatedly declaring your opponent psychiatrically ill? For my part, I would suggest you discuss the thread with your English teacher. If you haven't got one, you need one. Not an insult, genuine advice.
