OT: do you think the new "no call list" will survive?

Renata remarks:

>That was my thinking but someone pointed out that folks may also be
>putting their names on the list because they know they can't resist
>buying and this saves them the temptation.

I doubt it. I put my name on the list, first day possible. I have a rule to
never buy by telephone unless I initiate the call. I have no problem at all not
buying septic system treatments or credit help from some doofus on the phone.
It's right up there with not buying crap from HSN or QSwhatever it is.

Not once have I ever had a telemarketer call with something I needed or wanted.
If I did, I'd find a way to buy it elsewhere, but these days I hang up as soon
as the line starts to unreel.

Charlie Self

"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit
soft."
Theodore Roosevelt

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> sorts of things. Anyone rummaging in your trash can could
>> take those and raise all -sorts- of hell with your life.


True! It's all solved with a $25 crosscut shredder for Normites, or
scissors and fingers for the Neanders. <G>

Barry

Dave Mundt wrote:


> Hum...well, like it or not, somebody must be
> making big bucks off telemarketing, as otherwise it
> would not go on.

And your point is? They are preying upon the masses who can't or are
too ignorant to resist, just like all the credit card companies. You
and I are paying higher consumer prices to cover the unpaid bills of
those who over extend themselves.

> Now...I don't get that many telemarketing
> callse these days. I suspect this is because My
> life is so chaotic and hectic that I am rarely there
> to answer the phone, so, all they get is an answering
> machine.

So do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on?

> Secondly, I remember (as many folks don't) that
> the phone is there for MY convenience. Not YOURS. Therefore,
> if there is a period when you don't want to receive calls...
> simply turn the ringer off or down. Unless you have
> a family situation that could be life-or-death, then,
> I suspect there is nothing so important that it could
> not wait for a while. Or...Get caller ID. If it is
> an unwanted call, simply ignore it, or block it.

Why turn it off, I'm paying for it 24/7? And if your son called because
your grandaughter was just hit by a car and is in the IC unit at the
local hospital, and you didn't get the call you'd sure change your tune
and opinion damned quick.

Why should I have to pay an addt'l $7/month or more for caller ID so I
can ignore these freaking parasites? Blocking is worthless too,
Unavailable still goes through.

> I think that we, as citizens, need to take
> responsibility for this sort of thing, and, not allow
> the government to pass more laws that can get twisted
> about and used to criminalize legitimate behavior.

Its one of the few times that the Government can actually pass a law
that is GOOD and can do something for the people.

Robert Bonomi responds:

>
>The FTC believes the current ruling is wrong, and has asked the judge
>to delay his ruling, while appealed.
>
>The entire tempest will be over in a week or so. with the list *intact*.
>Implementation date might be delayed by a week, but that's the "worst case"
>scenario.
>

You'er probably right. Then, within 3 weeks, ALL the telemarketers, instead of
just most as now, will have Indian accents as the business goes offshore.

Charlie Self

"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit
soft."
Theodore Roosevelt

Larry Bud wrote:
>

> > You'er probably right. Then, within 3 weeks, ALL the telemarketers, instead of
> > just most as now, will have Indian accents as the business goes offshore.
>
> Perhaps, but that would reduce the amount of calls just due to cost of calling.

Hah!

My office mate made a trip to Germany and noted that it was cheaper to
call Germany per minute
than it was to make a call 70 miles up the road to Albuquerque (in state
long distance)

-Bruce


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Greetings and salutations...

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:59:17 -0700, Rico <[email protected]> wrote:

>Henry E Schaffer wrote:
>Some good may come out of this. Congress and the American
>public is incensed enough that we may end up with a law
>banning creating a no call list that bans all unsolicited
>sales, political, charity calls with severe penalties on the
>organization or company that is responsible for the calls.
>
Hum...As far as I know, this only blocks calls
from COMMERCIAL sales critters. Nonprofit organizations,
and, political groups can still call and chat. And
don't think they won't.

>Congress would never have approved a no call list that
>banned political solicitations, but they can't back down
>now.
>
And they have not.

>Those cock sucking worthless telemarketers have declared war
>on Congress and the American public. Let the games begin.
>
>Rico
>
Hum...well, like it or not, somebody must be
making big bucks off telemarketing, as otherwise it
would not go on.
Now...I don't get that many telemarketing
callse these days. I suspect this is because My
life is so chaotic and hectic that I am rarely there
to answer the phone, so, all they get is an answering
machine.
Secondly, I remember (as many folks don't) that
the phone is there for MY convenience. Not YOURS. Therefore,
if there is a period when you don't want to receive calls...
simply turn the ringer off or down. Unless you have
a family situation that could be life-or-death, then,
I suspect there is nothing so important that it could
not wait for a while. Or...Get caller ID. If it is
an unwanted call, simply ignore it, or block it.
I think that we, as citizens, need to take
responsibility for this sort of thing, and, not allow
the government to pass more laws that can get twisted
about and used to criminalize legitimate behavior.
As for the folks that say that these folks are annoying
because they take up too much time - My question is this:
Who holds a gun to your head and forces you to talk
with them? If you pick up on them, the moment you
realize it is a telemarketer, simply hang up. You
don't have to be friendly, you don't have to be rude.
Just hang up.
Regards
Dave Mundt

And another judge in Denver has ruled the whole law
unconstitutional...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2437-2003Sep25.html

Renata

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:59:52 GMT, bonomi@c-ns. (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
--snip--
>Note: As of the close of business today, Thursday, both houses of congress
>had passed, and sent to the President for signature, legislation to correct
>the 'defect' that the OK court claimed to have found.

Greetings and Salutations...

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:35:35 -0600, Grandpa <jsdebooATcomcast.net>
wrote:

>Dave Mundt wrote:
>
>
>> Hum...well, like it or not, somebody must be
>> making big bucks off telemarketing, as otherwise it
>> would not go on.
>
>And your point is? They are preying upon the masses who can't or are
>too ignorant to resist, just like all the credit card companies. You
>and I are paying higher consumer prices to cover the unpaid bills of
>those who over extend themselves.
>
Hum...perhaps. However, I suspect that this is rather
smaller than many other frauds that end up pumping up our costs.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of the losses taken
by the credit industry, or, retailers IS from defaulting buyers.

>> Now...I don't get that many telemarketing
>> callse these days. I suspect this is because My
>> life is so chaotic and hectic that I am rarely there
>> to answer the phone, so, all they get is an answering
>> machine.
>
>So do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on?
>
No...but, I want to point out that this was simply
an example of ONE way to deal with the situation that works
very well. I suspect that after about 6 months one could
take the answering machine off, if it is just too
offensive to one's life, as by that point the phone
number would likely be flagged as "machine only" in
the caller's databases.

>> Secondly, I remember (as many folks don't) that
>> the phone is there for MY convenience. Not YOURS. Therefore,
>> if there is a period when you don't want to receive calls...
>> simply turn the ringer off or down. Unless you have
>> a family situation that could be life-or-death, then,
>> I suspect there is nothing so important that it could
>> not wait for a while. Or...Get caller ID. If it is
>> an unwanted call, simply ignore it, or block it.
>
>Why turn it off, I'm paying for it 24/7? And if your son called because

Well, that is the trade-off, I suppose. What is more valuable?
The ringing interruption at any time of day? Or the period of
un-interrupted quiet during the dinner hour, etc.

>your grandaughter was just hit by a car and is in the IC unit at the
>local hospital, and you didn't get the call you'd sure change your tune
>and opinion damned quick.
>
THere are always situations that one can bring up where
quick communications are necessary. Which...actually...gets me
back to the answering machine. One very handy feature of all of them
today is "call screening". That way, one can turn off the bell,
but, still hear the voice coming through the machine. Typically,
if it is a telemarketer, they DON'T leave a message, or if they
do, it is trivial to delete it, mostly unheard. If it is a family
emergency, then, it is quite possible to pick up.
Oh yea...another benefit of the answering machine is that
if you are out or unavailable when the phone rings, there is some
way for folks out there to get in touch with you. Without this
useful tool, they are going to have to keep calling back until
they DO get you. Which is "better"?

>Why should I have to pay an addt'l $7/month or more for caller ID so I
>can ignore these freaking parasites? Blocking is worthless too,
>Unavailable still goes through.
>
This is a point. Perhaps we should agitate for the
government to require the phone companies to make Caller ID an
automatic part of the basic package. Actually, $7/month seems
a bit pricy to me, as these days, the cost for the computers
to do it must be no more than pennies. As I recall, Caller ID is
nothing more than 10 digits sent out between the first and
second rings at 1200 baud, with standard modem tones. That is
ancient technology, and, since pretty much the entire telephone
system is computer-controlled, does not require any extra
hardware or conversions. At most, it should be a buck, I think.

>> I think that we, as citizens, need to take
>> responsibility for this sort of thing, and, not allow
>> the government to pass more laws that can get twisted
>> about and used to criminalize legitimate behavior.
>
>Its one of the few times that the Government can actually pass a law
>that is GOOD and can do something for the people.
>
>
This is a point. However, frankly, I don't trust the
government to pass a law that is good for the people. Rather
I believe they will follow that long tradition of passing laws
which benefit the folks with the loudest voice (and in some
cases, the biggest check). I believe the current law is flawed
because it allows too many exemptions. If the legislators truely
wanted to "help" us, then, perhaps they would pass a law that says
ANY unsolicited phone calls making sales, soliciting funds or support
of any sort, to a private number, should be banned. It should also
state that, EVEN with a "prior business relationship" a consumer
should have to opt IN to receive more solicitations.
Now...granted this would make charitable and
political fundraising a bit more of a challenge, but, I am
sure they will find a way to suck cash out of our pockets
anyway.
Shucks...why stop there? How about banning junk mail
too? After all it is an intrusion and a waste of our time,
resources, etc.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:56:07 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
(Henry E Schaffer) Crawled out of the shop and said. . .:

snip

> This will make it hard to prosecute the callers, but the companies for
>whom the business is being solicited may still be subject to
>prosecution.

actually, the companies that are being represented will turn and
squeal like a stuck pig and tell the FTC anything they want to know
about the marketing firm doing all the cold calling for them.

also, IMHO, any company that needs to telemarket don't DESERVE my
business in the first place.

T

> >The entire tempest will be over in a week or so. with the list *intact*.
> >Implementation date might be delayed by a week, but that's the "worst case"
> >scenario.
> >
>
> You'er probably right. Then, within 3 weeks, ALL the telemarketers, instead of
> just most as now, will have Indian accents as the business goes offshore.

Perhaps, but that would reduce the amount of calls just due to cost of calling.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:17:06 -0700, Rico <[email protected]> pixelated:

>A pile of junk mail is far less nuisance than one telephone
>solicitation. I go get my mail once a day at a time of my
>choosing and stop at a garbage can to sort the mail on the
>way back into the house.

At the very least, I hope you tear every one of those
junk mails in half. More and more, the idiots sending
the things are including pre-filled applications for all
sorts of things. Anyone rummaging in your trash can could
take those and raise all -sorts- of hell with your life.

Y'know, like sending for 6 or 7 credit cards and coming
by before you get home for work to look in your mailbox
and walk off with them.


--
Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.
---- --Unknown

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:51:20 -0400, Silvan
<[email protected]> pixelated:

>Dave Mundt wrote:
>
>> realize it is a telemarketer, simply hang up. You
>> don't have to be friendly, you don't have to be rude.
>> Just hang up.
>
>I always say "No, no, no" and hang up. That way they can't somehow twist up
>a recording of the conversation to prove that I agreed to whatever they
>were trying to sell.

Ask 1 question: Is this a sales call?
Add one statement: Please remove me from your call list immediately.
Once that's done, you're legal.
Hang up.

Alternative:
Ask 1 question: Is this a sales call?
If affirmative, add: Give me your name, badge #, and company name.
Add one statement: Please remove me from your call list immediately.
Once that's done, you're legal and (possibly) have their info.
Hang up.

--
Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.
---- --Unknown

Dave Mundt wrote:

> realize it is a telemarketer, simply hang up. You
> don't have to be friendly, you don't have to be rude.
> Just hang up.

I always say "No, no, no" and hang up. That way they can't somehow twist up
a recording of the conversation to prove that I agreed to whatever they
were trying to sell.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17980 Approximate word count: 539400
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

In article <[email protected]>,
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Bonomi responds:
>
>>
>>The FTC believes the current ruling is wrong, and has asked the judge
>>to delay his ruling, while appealed.
>>
>>The entire tempest will be over in a week or so. with the list *intact*.
>>Implementation date might be delayed by a week, but that's the "worst case"
>>scenario.
>>
>
>You'er probably right. Then, within 3 weeks, ALL the telemarketers, instead of
>just most as now, will have Indian accents as the business goes offshore.

Doesn't matter. Off-shore calls _into_ the U.S. are _expressly_ covered by
the new rules. An advantage that the FTC has over the FCC.


Note: As of the close of business today, Thursday, both houses of congress
had passed, and sent to the President for signature, legislation to correct
the 'defect' that the OK court claimed to have found.

Henry E Schaffer wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ...
> >You'er probably right. Then, within 3 weeks, ALL the telemarketers, instead of
> >just most as now, will have Indian accents as the business goes offshore.
>
> This will make it hard to prosecute the callers, but the companies for
> whom the business is being solicited may still be subject to
> prosecution.
>

Some good may come out of this. Congress and the American
public is incensed enough that we may end up with a law
banning creating a no call list that bans all unsolicited
sales, political, charity calls with severe penalties on the
organization or company that is responsible for the calls.

Congress would never have approved a no call list that
banned political solicitations, but they can't back down
now.

Those cock sucking worthless telemarketers have declared war
on Congress and the American public. Let the games begin.

Rico


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dave Mundt wrote:
> My question is this:
> Who holds a gun to your head and forces you to talk
> with them? If you pick up on them, the moment you
> realize it is a telemarketer, simply hang up. You
> don't have to be friendly, you don't have to be rude.
> Just hang up.
> Regards
> Dave Mundt
>
>

The phone is a tool that I pay for for my convenience. If I
the phone rings and I stop doing what I am doing to answer
it because I have reason to expect a worthwhile call, and
it's a sales puke, then they have interrupted me and wasted
my time.

If you like sales pukes to call you, fine, but don't expect
the rest of us to enjoy going to answer the phone and find a
parasite on the other end of the line.

The idea that a sales 'droid should be allowed to ring a
bell inside your home to get your attention is ludicrous.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Grandpa <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote:
> > Shucks...why stop there? How about banning junk mail
> > too? After all it is an intrusion and a waste of our time,
> > resources, etc.
>
> I could live with that too, then maybe the cost of mailing a letter
> won't increase in the next year or two. Less mail, less letter
> carriers, less carriers, less cost etc etc etc. Oh wait, its an
> OBLIGATION for Government to employ the masses.
>
>

A pile of junk mail is far less nuisance than one telephone
solicitation. I go get my mail once a day at a time of my
choosing and stop at a garbage can to sort the mail on the
way back into the house.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:17:06 -0700, Rico <[email protected]> pixelated:
>
> >A pile of junk mail is far less nuisance than one telephone
> >solicitation. I go get my mail once a day at a time of my
> >choosing and stop at a garbage can to sort the mail on the
> >way back into the house.
>
> At the very least, I hope you tear every one of those
> junk mails in half. More and more, the idiots sending
> the things are including pre-filled applications for all
> sorts of things. Anyone rummaging in your trash can could
> take those and raise all -sorts- of hell with your life.
>
> Y'know, like sending for 6 or 7 credit cards and coming
> by before you get home for work to look in your mailbox
> and walk off with them.

Anything of use to a crook gets dropped in the cross cut
shreader. Basically anything from a financial a institution
and most other sealed envelopes from junk mailers.

My shredder handles unsolicited debit and credit cards too,
nice.

There most be some way to make a slurry out of the cross cut
paper, add a little glue or something and make you own wood
substitute :)

Dick


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

That gives me an idea, I'll just skip the blender stage and
have DSB Disoriented Strand Board :)

CW wrote:
> After the shredder, throw it in a blender. Add glue, press till dry. MDF.
> "Rico" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > There most be some way to make a slurry out of the cross cut
> > paper, add a little glue or something and make you own wood
> > substitute :)
> >
> > Dick


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article <[email protected]>,
Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>And another judge in Denver has ruled the whole law
>unconstitutional...

Which will *NOT* hold up on appeal. The _exact_ same issue was raised
about the junk fax statute (TCPA, aka 47 USC 227), and the Sup Ct. held
that it _was_ Constitutional.

That doofus judge in Colorado needs a refresher course in constitutional
law. which the Appelate court _will_ give him.

>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2437-2003Sep25.html
>
>Renata
>
>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:59:52 GMT, bonomi@c-ns. (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>--snip--
>>Note: As of the close of business today, Thursday, both houses of congress
>>had passed, and sent to the President for signature, legislation to correct
>>the 'defect' that the OK court claimed to have found.
>

On 26 Sep 2003, Doug Miller spake unto rec.woodworking:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Renata) wrote:
>>And another judge in Denver has ruled the whole law
>>unconstitutional...
>
> I have my doubts that ruling will stand. The judge ruled the law
> unconstitutional because it prohibits some telemarketing calls, and
> permits others, based on content; he held that to do so is an
> unconstitutional infringment of the telemarketers' First Amendment
> right to free speech.
>
> I believe that ruling will be overturned, on the grounds that nobody
> has a Constitutional right to telephone people who do not wish to
> receive calls, i.e. there is no Constitutional right to be annoying.

I agree that it will be overturned, but now it will take a bit of
time to wind through the courts.

Having gone through this on-again off-again roller coaster, I imagine
that those who signed on to the Do Not Call list are going to give an
earful to any telemarketer with the cojones to call after October 1st.

More of an earful than usual, I mean.

Rico wrote:

> Grandpa <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Shucks...why stop there? How about banning junk mail
>>>too? After all it is an intrusion and a waste of our time,
>>>resources, etc.
>>
>>I could live with that too, then maybe the cost of mailing a letter
>>won't increase in the next year or two. Less mail, less letter
>>carriers, less carriers, less cost etc etc etc. Oh wait, its an
>>OBLIGATION for Government to employ the masses.
>
> A pile of junk mail is far less nuisance than one telephone
> solicitation. I go get my mail once a day at a time of my
> choosing and stop at a garbage can to sort the mail on the
> way back into the house.

True, but less of it should keep the rates down, at least for awhile. I
open them & if theres a post paid envelope inside and send it back,
empty. That way they have to pay for the postage. Others I keep the
stamps from as I collect them<G>. Yeah, I'm cluttering the system too
but maybe they'll get the msg, maybe not<sigh>.

Hey, sounds like you must be in Soccoro (Grandpa in Albuquerque)? Come
on now, you know Manny Arrogant is in the pockets of Qwest and every
other large industry in the Land of Entrapment. The state is looking
out for us peons!

Bruce Rowen wrote:

> Larry Bud wrote:
>
>
>>>You'er probably right. Then, within 3 weeks, ALL the telemarketers, instead of
>>>just most as now, will have Indian accents as the business goes offshore.
>>
>>Perhaps, but that would reduce the amount of calls just due to cost of calling.
>
>
> Hah!
>
> My office mate made a trip to Germany and noted that it was cheaper to
> call Germany per minute
> than it was to make a call 70 miles up the road to Albuquerque (in state
> long distance)
>
> -Bruce
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dave Mundt wrote:

>>too ignorant to resist, just like all the credit card companies. You
>>and I are paying higher consumer prices to cover the unpaid bills of
>>those who over extend themselves.
>
> Hum...perhaps. However, I suspect that this is rather
> smaller than many other frauds that end up pumping up our costs.
> It would be interesting to see what percentage of the losses taken
> by the credit industry, or, retailers IS from defaulting buyers.

True, it would. Given the number of debt reduction telemarketing calls
I get I'm assuming that many over extend themselves, then are open to
the next wave of shysters, the debt consolidations ones.


>>So do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on?

> No...but, I want to point out that this was simply
> an example of ONE way to deal with the situation that works
> very well. I suspect that after about 6 months one could
> take the answering machine off, if it is just too
> offensive to one's life, as by that point the phone
> number would likely be flagged as "machine only" in
> the caller's databases.

Your correct, I was a little hasty with my response. I guess I'm just
tired of these continual phone calls, especially the computer ones that
by the tone of their msg seem to think I am obligated to do business
with them. Got one the other day, they ID's the company etc then said
they didn't understand why I'd not contacted them re: yada yada yada -
debt consolidation service. Hell, my credit is above an 8 in all 6
catagories and what little debt I have I can pay off if necessary. Why
WOULD I want to call them back?

>>Why turn it off, I'm paying for it 24/7? And if your son called because
>
>
> Well, that is the trade-off, I suppose. What is more valuable?
> The ringing interruption at any time of day? Or the period of
> un-interrupted quiet during the dinner hour, etc.

True, but it goes against the grain to pay for something that others
feel they have the right to abuse, at my expense no less.

>>Why should I have to pay an addt'l $7/month or more for caller ID so I
>>can ignore these freaking parasites? Blocking is worthless too,
>>Unavailable still goes through.

> This is a point. Perhaps we should agitate for the
> government to require the phone companies to make Caller ID an
> automatic part of the basic package. Actually, $7/month seems
> a bit pricy to me, as these days, the cost for the computers
> to do it must be no more than pennies.

I understand from a friend who used to work for Qwest that they already
get all these numbers in their system with each call and intentionally
block them to peoples homes (outgoing). Then when you want caller ID
they UNblock the dataset and you can see the numbers. Another scheme to
fleece the millions.

>>Its one of the few times that the Government can actually pass a law
>>that is GOOD and can do something for the people.
>
> This is a point. However, frankly, I don't trust the
> government to pass a law that is good for the people. Rather
> I believe they will follow that long tradition of passing laws
> which benefit the folks with the loudest voice (and in some
> cases, the biggest check).

I don't trust them either but take note that they were damned quick to
respond to the OK judges decision. As someone pointed out, thats 50
million people and who knows really how many of them vote. Seems even
politicians may nit be immune to these calls<G>!

> because it allows too many exemptions. If the legislators truely
> wanted to "help" us, then, perhaps they would pass a law that says
> ANY unsolicited phone calls making sales, soliciting funds or support
> of any sort, to a private number, should be banned.

Yes, however we both know how politicians operate and are going to have
to compromise to some degree. At lease the political swines don't bug
you year round with their calls. Note too that these are almost
exclusively computer calls.

> Shucks...why stop there? How about banning junk mail
> too? After all it is an intrusion and a waste of our time,
> resources, etc.

I could live with that too, then maybe the cost of mailing a letter
won't increase in the next year or two. Less mail, less letter
carriers, less carriers, less cost etc etc etc. Oh wait, its an
OBLIGATION for Government to employ the masses.

Larry Jaques wrote:

> sorts of things. Anyone rummaging in your trash can could
> take those and raise all -sorts- of hell with your life.

What I used to love were the checks. Real checks I could take to the bank,
with fine print saying if I cash it I agree to pay 30,000% interest, three
kidneys and five testicles a week for the next 275 years.

I was always afraid somebody would get ahold of one of those things and cash
it on my behalf.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 18003 Approximate word count: 540090
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Larry Jaques wrote:

> White House and being bothered by all those telemarketers.
> Yeah, maybe that's it.

Hello, Mr. President. I hear the windows in your house are very old and
ineffeicient, and that you don't yet have vinyl siding. We'll be sending
an agent to your residence to give you an estimate on dramatically lowering
your monthly energy costs.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 18000 Approximate word count: 540000
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:05:21 GMT, [email protected] (Renata)
pixelated:

>And another judge in Denver has ruled the whole law
>unconstitutional...
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2437-2003Sep25.html

Can you imagine how much oil money would be lost if we,
the people, ruled out junk mail and phone calls? With so
much less to deliver (both mail and product), billions of
gallons of gas and oil per year would not be sold and
profiteered upon. How could our fearless leader allow that?
I'm sure the judges have their orders on such matters.
(Think how many officials that extra oil money can buy.)

Sign me: Fed up in OR.


--
Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.
---- --Unknown

In article <[email protected]>,
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>You'er probably right. Then, within 3 weeks, ALL the telemarketers, instead of
>just most as now, will have Indian accents as the business goes offshore.

This will make it hard to prosecute the callers, but the companies for
whom the business is being solicited may still be subject to
prosecution.
--
--henry schaffer
[email protected]

"Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@c-ns.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:05:21 GMT, [email protected] (Renata)
> >pixelated:
> >
> >>And another judge in Denver has ruled the whole law
> >>unconstitutional...
> >>
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2437-2003Sep25.html
> >
> >Can you imagine how much oil money would be lost if we,
> >the people, ruled out junk mail and phone calls? With so
> >much less to deliver (both mail and product), billions of
> >gallons of gas and oil per year would not be sold and
> >profiteered upon. How could our fearless leader allow that?
> >I'm sure the judges have their orders on such matters.
> >(Think how many officials that extra oil money can buy.)
> >
> >Sign me: Fed up in OR.
>
> Dear Fed up in OR,
> Would it suprise you to learn that your Fearless Leader is
> *STRONGLY* in favor of the Do-Not-Call list??
>
> Fasten your seat-belt. He *is*.

You mean god is on our side?

-Jack

I have a phone that speaks who is calling.
(you need caller ID)

We can hear who is calling throughout the house, and decide to answer.



"Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greetings and salutations...
>
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:59:17 -0700, Rico <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Henry E Schaffer wrote:
> >Some good may come out of this. Congress and the American
> >public is incensed enough that we may end up with a law
> >banning creating a no call list that bans all unsolicited
> >sales, political, charity calls with severe penalties on the
> >organization or company that is responsible for the calls.
> >
> Hum...As far as I know, this only blocks calls
> from COMMERCIAL sales critters. Nonprofit organizations,
> and, political groups can still call and chat. And
> don't think they won't.
>
> >Congress would never have approved a no call list that
> >banned political solicitations, but they can't back down
> >now.
> >
> And they have not.
>
> >Those cock sucking worthless telemarketers have declared war
> >on Congress and the American public. Let the games begin.
> >
> >Rico
> >
> Hum...well, like it or not, somebody must be
> making big bucks off telemarketing, as otherwise it
> would not go on.
> Now...I don't get that many telemarketing
> callse these days. I suspect this is because My
> life is so chaotic and hectic that I am rarely there
> to answer the phone, so, all they get is an answering
> machine.
> Secondly, I remember (as many folks don't) that
> the phone is there for MY convenience. Not YOURS. Therefore,
> if there is a period when you don't want to receive calls...
> simply turn the ringer off or down. Unless you have
> a family situation that could be life-or-death, then,
> I suspect there is nothing so important that it could
> not wait for a while. Or...Get caller ID. If it is
> an unwanted call, simply ignore it, or block it.
> I think that we, as citizens, need to take
> responsibility for this sort of thing, and, not allow
> the government to pass more laws that can get twisted
> about and used to criminalize legitimate behavior.
> As for the folks that say that these folks are annoying
> because they take up too much time - My question is this:
> Who holds a gun to your head and forces you to talk
> with them? If you pick up on them, the moment you
> realize it is a telemarketer, simply hang up. You
> don't have to be friendly, you don't have to be rude.
> Just hang up.
> Regards
> Dave Mundt
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:05:21 GMT, [email protected] (Renata)
>pixelated:
>
>>And another judge in Denver has ruled the whole law
>>unconstitutional...
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2437-2003Sep25.html
>
>Can you imagine how much oil money would be lost if we,
>the people, ruled out junk mail and phone calls? With so
>much less to deliver (both mail and product), billions of
>gallons of gas and oil per year would not be sold and
>profiteered upon. How could our fearless leader allow that?
>I'm sure the judges have their orders on such matters.
>(Think how many officials that extra oil money can buy.)
>
>Sign me: Fed up in OR.

Dear Fed up in OR,
Would it suprise you to learn that your Fearless Leader is
*STRONGLY* in favor of the Do-Not-Call list??

Fasten your seat-belt. He *is*.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:37:29 GMT, bonomi@c-ns. (Robert Bonomi)
pixelated:

>Dear Fed up in OR,
> Would it suprise you to learn that your Fearless Leader is
>*STRONGLY* in favor of the Do-Not-Call list??
>
> Fasten your seat-belt. He *is*.

Perhaps he is -to the press-. Or maybe it's because he has
always hated answering the phone in his mansions or in the
White House and being bothered by all those telemarketers.
Yeah, maybe that's it.


--
Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.
---- --Unknown

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:02:02 -0600, Grandpa <jsdebooATcomcast.net>
wrote:

>Dave Mundt wrote:
>
>> This is a point. Perhaps we should agitate for the
>> government to require the phone companies to make Caller ID an
>> automatic part of the basic package. Actually, $7/month seems
>> a bit pricy to me, as these days, the cost for the computers
>> to do it must be no more than pennies.
>
>I understand from a friend who used to work for Qwest that they already
>get all these numbers in their system with each call and intentionally
>block them to peoples homes (outgoing). Then when you want caller ID
>they UNblock the dataset and you can see the numbers. Another scheme to
>fleece the millions.

I guess you guys, and the Qwest person, aren't familiar with software
licensing.

Caller ID and other "vertical features", such as Call Forwarding,
Three Way Calling, and Call Waiting are licensed by the switch
vendors, Lucent, Nortel, Siemens, and others, per user. The local
phone provider has to pay the vendor to use these features. Once
upon a time, Touch Tone was one of these licensed features. Some
basic features may be licensed per hundred or thousand users, heavy
duty features may be licensed by the individual user.

Right to Use fees are a huge expense built into your phone bill.
Incorporating such features into the basic service could be done, for
less cost than the ala carte services, along with a corresponding
small rate increase. This stuff gets offered all the time by Telcos
during PUC rate cases, but gets shot down by consumer groups looking
out for the little old lady on a fixed income. Google on "FCC and
Universal Service and Rate Case" to learn more.

I think the Qwest person had a very limited view of the overall
picture. These comments often come from technicians that believe
turning the feature on is all there is to it. The catchy part is that
switch vendors audit often, sometimes as part of minor updates, so
telcos are constantly bouncing billing records against actual usage.
Most RTU contracts have large financial penalties for violations.

Barry

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:17:06 -0700, Rico <[email protected]> wrote:


>A pile of junk mail is far less nuisance than one telephone
>solicitation.

Not to mention that junk mail can start fires, line the cat box,
protect from paint spills...

Barry

You pay again in that 911 emergency charge on your bill. Company provides
the calling number and a reverse directory lookup.

Then there are the charges on recording media ....

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> I guess you guys, and the Qwest person, aren't familiar with software
> licensing.
>
> Caller ID and other "vertical features", such as Call Forwarding,
> Three Way Calling, and Call Waiting are licensed by the switch
> vendors, Lucent, Nortel, Siemens, and others, per user. The local
> phone provider has to pay the vendor to use these features.

After the shredder, throw it in a blender. Add glue, press till dry. MDF.
"Rico" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There most be some way to make a slurry out of the cross cut
> paper, add a little glue or something and make you own wood
> substitute :)
>
> Dick
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Renata) wrote:
>And another judge in Denver has ruled the whole law
>unconstitutional...

I have my doubts that ruling will stand. The judge ruled the law
unconstitutional because it prohibits some telemarketing calls, and permits
others, based on content; he held that to do so is an unconstitutional
infringment of the telemarketers' First Amendment right to free speech.

I believe that ruling will be overturned, on the grounds that nobody has a
Constitutional right to telephone people who do not wish to receive calls,
i.e. there is no Constitutional right to be annoying.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Mike Hide writes:

>What pisses me is one "appointed" judge can over ride the wishes of 50
>million people. It seems to me it has been happening all the time in
>California, Judges seem to overide any proposition on the ballot and
>approved by the masses.

What pisses me off more than that is the nonsense they're now spouting about it
being a free speech issue. It's not. These clowns are using equipment I bought
on lines I pay for to interrupt my supper. That's not free speech. They're
bring their low end "store" to my house, but they're making me pay for their
trip.

At least three times a week, my answering machine tape has a recording, same
voice, of some dip trying to sell me a credit counseling service. Evidently now
they just robodial and dump the load. What's the point? It would take a total
idiot to buy credit counseling over the phone, and an even bigger idiot to buy
something from someone who irritates them at the outset.

Charlie Self

"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit
soft."
Theodore Roosevelt

On 28 Sep 2003 08:42:50 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:

>What pisses me off more than that is the nonsense they're now spouting about it
>being a free speech issue. It's not. These clowns are using equipment I bought
>on lines I pay for to interrupt my supper. That's not free speech. They're
>bring their low end "store" to my house, but they're making me pay for their
>trip.

The whole "I pay for the line" thing is what gets me. This is
precisely the argument that got the junk fax law passed.

It all seems so simple to me.

Barry

Must be some other kind of robot than I experience. With me, they ring
three times only, to avoid answering machines, I suppose.

Three rings is just about the time it takes me to confirm the phone ringing
by the second, and get to the phone as the third dies away....

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At least three times a week, my answering machine tape has a recording,
same
> voice, of some dip trying to sell me a credit counseling service.
Evidently now
> they just robodial and dump the load. What's the point? It would take a
total
> idiot to buy credit counseling over the phone, and an even bigger idiot to
buy
> something from someone who irritates them at the outset.