Thursday, May 14, 2009

An important issue

Campaign for a Safe Interjecting Room

Dear Mr Hockey and Mr Albanese,

I hope you will agree, people talking over other people who are talking is one of the biggest problems in the world today. It is a direct cause of miscommunication, anger, and confusion, and it has adverse effects in many workplaces. Yes, the chronic addiction to interrupting, overtalking, and ignoring what the other person has to say that many of our public figures suffer from is a blight upon our society, and we must do everything we can to tackle it.

That is why, Mr Hockey and Mr Albanese, I am writing to you to suggest a truly original and progressive method of tackling this horrible addiction to interrupting and overtalking. I would like the Federal Government to immediately fund a series of Safe Interjecting Rooms for our major towns and cities, so the chronic interrupters have somewhere to go to indulge in their practice without harming other citizens.

Here's how I think it would work:
- The person wishing to Interject books themselves a room at a certain time.

- They arrive in the room, which is occupied by a Certified Interjection Supervisor.

- The Certified Interjection Supervisor will then attempt to engage the Interjector in polite conversation, and the Interjector will proceed to talk over them.

I can see these Safe Interjecting Rooms as being frequented by many of our major politicians and parliamentary members, who have a demonstrable addiction to interrupting and overtalking, as any viewer of Question Time will be able to ascertain.

Joe, Tony - think about it! Our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, would finally have a place he could go to and say 'Now just let me say this', or 'Just on that point' or 'Can I just say this' to his heart's content! He wouldn't even have to wait for the Interjection Supervisor to start talking! Wilson Tuckey would finally have a supervised, safe room in which he could waffle a series of sort-of-meaningful points in someone's direction and not care at all whether they were listening or not! And politicians, such as yourselves, who occasionally appear on radio for the privilege of talking over one another in front of a listening audience could even have a special room set aside for yourselves where you could happily ignore and interrupt one another for as long and as loudly as you want. I think it makes sense, anyway.

There will, of course, be naysayers and disgruntled business owners in the community who will object to the presence of Interjecting rooms in their neighbourhood. They may argue that the Interjecting rooms, and the interrupters and overtalkers who frequent them, will lower the tone of the neighbourhood, and that they may begin talking over innocent business owners or people walking on the street. They may further argue that this will lead to a subsequent rise in crime and other not-very-nice things in their neighbourhood. I don't see it this way myself: I believe, if the rules of the Safe Interjecting Room are simple and clear, there is no reason why the overtalkers and the interrupters who frequent the Interjecting Room will carry their practice outside. Rather, they will be able to work on ways of cutting back on their habit of overtalking, and finally become productive members of society once again. We can at least try it.

After all - as years of government treatment of drug addicts, alcoholics, and cigarette smokers will show, we cannot just let people who have such addictions alone. We must subject them to a series of condescending programs which may or may not have some slight success in treating the addictions of a few of the addicts, which programs may or may not be retracted or curbed by other governments at a later date if they see fit, and in accordance with the electoral sympathies of a number of influential lobby groups. It's the way of democracy, guys! With luck and good judgement, we can have as much success in treating the problem of addiction to chronic overtalking and interrupting as we have with all the other drugs in our society!

Tim Train
The Coalition for a Safe Interjecting Room
Thornbury, Victoria


Dan said...

I will strongly oppose this if they attempt to set it up in MY neighbourhood.

I don't want a whole bunch of drop-out politicians rocking up next door to me to indulge in their vile habit of dodging questions and committing to nothing useful. Every time I step outside there will be some loser saying "hey man, have you got a spare vote you can give me?", and I'll have to make out I haven't by patting my pockets and giving some lame excuse like I gave my last remaining vote to the poor soul that came out before him.

No sireee, we have support services for THESE kinds of "people" in a place called Canberra.

TimT said...

Now that's just unfair. It's only through tolerance and a community effort that we will give these people the willpower to overcome their debilitating addictions and become fully functioning members of society.

Caz said...

Dan - as Timmy suggests, isn't it time that we stopped locking these poor souls up in Canberra, a desolate place in the middle of nowhere?

No wonder they interject, how would you cope in such cruel and barren circumstances?

We need to de-institutionalize the interjectors, close these hell holes, and establish community based solutions for them, just as we've done so successfully for the disabled and the mentally ill.

Ed said...

Ha! Brilliant satire. Stumbled across this via another post.

Very well written, hope your typing is getting you enough for food. From this it should be! My typing is not - if not for my partner I would be homeless and hungry...

TimT said...

Glad you liked it, though sometimes I wonder about the merits of my a) making a serious argument in one post and b) linking to an ironic argument in another post. I end up not sure what I'm arguing myself.

Caz said...

Oh crap.

Blogs are for arguing a consistent point of view?

Now you tell me!

Email: timhtrain - at -

eXTReMe Tracker

Blog Archive