dslreports logo

Taurus333
join:2001-04-06
Ohio

Taurus333 to hpguru

Member

to hpguru

Re: do not call list was slippery slope to this....

said by hpguru:

You are so so blind. You just don't get it at all. The government in this case did not legislate what was appropriate for us. They passed a law in response to overwhelming public demand to create a DO NOT CALL REGISTRY.
The supposed "overwhelming public demand" amounts to less than 20% of the population. That is where the total stands as to how many actually signed up for it.
said by hpguru:

I was not added to that registry against my will. I added myself to the registry. So how did they legislate what was appropriate for us? They didn't. They simply gave us what we demanded and that was to legislate what was inappropriate for YOU and we took advantage of it. You know this is true. It is why you went belly up after all.
What you demanded was that the government be responsible for your phone line instead of you taking personal responsibility for it yourself. That creates a slippery slope that erodes freedoms if we ask the government to make decisions for us rather than making those decisions for ourselves. You cannot expect legislation to cure every pet peeve and trivial annoyance in life.
said by hpguru:

Don't bother to respond. You are now on my ignore list with the rest of the spammers and trolls.
This is a public forum, feel free to ignore me while I feel free to express my opinion.

Vvian Kalyss
join:2003-10-14
Stage 5.0

Vvian Kalyss

Member

Normally I just ignore your bullshit since it's fun to just watch everyone else wail on you, but it's been a slow day.
said by Taurus333:

The supposed "overwhelming public demand" amounts to less than 20% of the population. That is where the total stands as to how many actually signed up for it.
Check that against the number of private, non-business phone numbers, not the total population. That's just stupid. One phone line does not one citizen equate.
said by Taurus333:

Excuse me, but how does your idea of how your phone service should be used differ from using my computer, my internet service, that I pay for in my home to communicate with me? I didn't specifically ask for your response to this and I could see your response in the same unsolicited way that you see a telemarketers call.
A phone call is not a random yelled greeting to any receptive persons in a park. And: you DO realise you did not solicit his response, and you aren't even paying to post to/read this board. He pays for his phone line, he damn well has every right not to want every Tom, Dick, and Harry be able to call it.
said by Taurus333:

And without rehashing the old telemarketing debate here, your inability to take personal responsibility for your phone line, infringes on my ability to use my phone service that I pay for in the way that I see fit. Keep in mind, neither of us owns the phone service and both of us pay for outgoing and not incoming calls.
Ignoring that, in fact, he has unlisted and unpublished numbers. Also ignoring that your right to use your service ends where his rights to use his service begins. An unlisted number means just that, don't call it if you don't know who it belongs to. Guess what? The law was changed to agree.
said by hpguru:

Furthermore I have had unlisted and unpublished telephone numbers since I had my first phone and while that cut down on the number of spammers calling it didn't stop them all. And you know good and well that for most of the years technologies such as CID have been available they have failed to identify out of area spammer calls as such which has forced most people to answer so as not to miss calls from out of area friends and relatives or from their employers.
said by Taurus333:

And even though you might not have a problem with me being put out of business because of laws like this, one day it could be you in that same predicament simply cause someone else decides they don't approve of what you do.
That's what all the spammers say, but nobody has any sympathy for them. Malware is the telemarketing of the internet.
The Antihero
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA

The Antihero to Taurus333

Member

to Taurus333
said by Taurus333:

What you demanded was that the government be responsible for your phone line instead of you taking personal responsibility for it yourself. That creates a slippery slope that erodes freedoms if we ask the government to make decisions for us rather than making those decisions for ourselves. You cannot expect legislation to cure every pet peeve and trivial annoyance in life.

I suppose that if we were on a list where compliance was voluntary, you and all your kind would have refrained from calling us out of the goodness of your hearts, right? Oh wait, I seem to remember that was actually attempted once. I remember the DMA kept their own list, and yes, I did write to them to have my name put on it. It worked about as well as a screen door on a submarine.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You and your beloved industry have only yourselves to blame.

Taurus333
join:2001-04-06
Ohio

Taurus333 to Vvian Kalyss

Member

to Vvian Kalyss
said by Vvian Kalyss:

Check that against the number of private, non-business phone numbers, not the total population. That's just stupid. One phone line does not one citizen equate.
It had been determined in a previous debate that the number of phone numbers is the same as the population (households with more than 1 line cancel out households with more than 1 person)and besides congressmen themselves seemed to want to interchange the two, by referring to it as people signed up rather than numbers. No matter which way you add it up, the amount signed up reflects less than 20% of all possible numbers and even within that amount it contains padding of that total with businesses erroneously signed up and cellphones that weren't receiving telemarketing calls to begin with included in the totals.