said by Taurus333:

Or do you consider commercials and newspaper ads spam too?

said by Taurus333:

I never called unlisted numbers, I respected privacy manager and anyone telling me that they were not interested. I never called the same area more than twice a year and some areas I probably only called once within the two decades I worked. Well over 95% of people I called were nice, friendly, polite and receptive to my call whether interested or not. So please tell me how I personally didn't exercise personal responsibility when doing my job? I agree that there are some bad apples in the industry but that goes for any profession and industry there is but just as you want to be treated as an individual, the same goes for me and for anyone no matter what their job title might be.

said by The Antihero:

First, you say you didn't circumvent anything. Then you say you did block Caller ID. Which is it? Just because it's blocked doesn't necessarily mean a telemarketer. My job doesn't show up, and until recently, neither did some of my family who lives out in the sticks. Nice try. Oh, and once again, you didn't answer the question.

said by The Antihero:

Now THAT is an excellent point. I'd also like to point out that moderated message boards generally don't allow spam, either. I rest my case.

said by The Antihero:

If you had excercised personal responsiblity in the beginning, and made an actual effort to keep from calling people who didn't want to be called, the whole DNC list wouldn't have been needed in the first place.

said by Taurus333:

I never circumvented any of those measures, yes my number was blocked but that allowed those on the other end to deduce that it was a telemarketing call, it also allowed privacy manager to block my call and those with that service were marked off as not interested on my list.

said by Taurus333:

And now you are going to play stupid

said by Taurus333:

And now you are going to play stupid, come on, we all know what that means, basically if you can't say it on a moderated message board it would fall under that category.

said by Taurus333:

True, but the difference between us is that I can solve my own phone issues while you want the government to step in and do it for you. Its called personal responsibility for ones own trivial annoyances in life, something I have and that you lack.

said by The Antihero:

Who are you do say what constitutes "excessive vulgarity and profanity?" Don't I have the right to "free speech" just as you claim telemarketers do? Maybe most of the people I know don't have a problem with profanity. By your logic, doesn't that mean that you shouldn't either?

said by The Antihero:

My point, which will probably go over your head yet once again is, that you do have the right to decide what should and shouldn't be allowed on your phone. Just like I do.

said by Taurus333:

Now if you were making threatening calls or using excessive vulgarity and profanity that changes that and I would seek outside help in dealing with it.

said by Taurus333:

My point is that it costs me to call you but doesn't cost you anything to receive the call....except 10 seconds of your time if you choose to answer it, which brings up another point, you are not required to answer your phone when it rings

said by Taurus333:

and can choose to have an unlisted number, answering machine, caller id, privacy manager etc. to not have to do so.

said by Taurus333:

But the point I was trying to make initially is getting lost in all of this and it is an important point that we all need to think about. When you infringe on one person or groups freedom, it becomes a slippery slope to infringing on all of our freedoms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :uhh:

said by hpguru:

Don't bother to respond. You are now on my ignore list with the rest of the spammers and trolls.