.com.unity Forums - OT - No-Call list

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - OT - No-Call list (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=9904)

Re: OT - No-Call list

Geo hit the nail on the head. I have a phone for my use, not some bunch of el-cheepo phone
bank scum to use for their income tools. If the pizza shop just used your car to deliver your
pizza, wouldn�t that piss you off? And what if you didn�t ask for a pizza? They just used your
car to drive up and tell you that there was a sale?

I have made call after call to have my name removed from lists. I have spent hours trying to get a word in so that I could ask them not to call me. Actually asking them about their sexual limits will usually get them to hang up http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I am glad that with a few key strokes, I can now stop most of them.

[ July 11, 2003, 01:59: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Re: OT - No-Call list

Don't get me wrong, telemarketers are a pain in the arse I could live without! I have one from ATT (one of the exempt companies) who I have politely told not to call, rudely told not to call and done some of the various fun things to do to telemarketers, yet she keeps calling. I think next on the list will be one of those marine emergency airhorns sitting next to the phone, quietly waiting. Maybe a burst eardrum will solve the problem. (All right maybe that's a little too viscous.)

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
The space between the two lines would indicate two statements. The second made no mention
of the constitution. American law is based on precedent, which has its power rooted firmly
within the supreme court. And the court usually leans towards the will of the people as opposed
to the will of business.

So what is the second statement based on? Where do you derive this "right to privacy?"

American law (as created by our Founding Fathers) is based on English common law and Judaeo/Christian morals. The Supreme Court has historically and not unfrequently disregarded not only precedent but also original intent when passing judgement on various cases.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
By the way, how does this grow the Feds? They will have a net loss if the system works. Do
you have any idea how many complaints they have to field about phone solicitations? I guess its
back to the 1-900 scams for the phone banks now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If only this were true. Unfortunatley, once a Federal government job is created, it's next to impossible to get rid of it. New jobs will be made to handle/maintain/enforce this list and the old jobs that handled phone solicitation complaints will not be down sized . And the American people will be paying for yet another unconstitutional program.

Mathias Ice

Re: OT - No-Call list

Krsqk, what right do they have to take 1 second of my day, much less 30 seconds. It's my thirty seconds! I'll do what ever the heck I want to with them, and I won't appoloigize for it. And I won't ask their permission to use them, and I won't be harrased into turning off the phone that I paid my own damn money for to buy in the first place. And I shuldn't have to spend another thirty seconds getting on a do not call list that won't really do any good anyway. It's not the amount of time that's the question, it's the principle.

Geoschmo

Re: OT - No-Call list

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:
Anyone every heard the sound clip "one angry brit" on www.heavy.com? I'd post a link if I could. Very funny clip on one guys reaction to a unsolicited phone call. hehe

Or, try this one (the only real use for telemarketing as far as I'm concerned...)

Attack_on_Taliban

Re: OT - No-Call list

Mathias:

In the US congress writes federal law. If it violated the constitution the courts would be
expected to vacate the law. Usually they do. The issues that the courts dodge are usually social issues where there is not a clear course or where modern interpretation has altered the original intent. In some cases they tend to make social judgments, which in my opinion cause the most harm. In this case my right to privacy is based on existing law and the addition of the law
passed by congress. While it extends the reach of the existing law, it has a firm foundation. Is
the law perfect, hell no. But it aint half bad considering the amount of cash the other side spent fighting it.

As to the federal jobs, that is a myth based on the way things used to be. Work like this will be
done by contractors. And the contractors will lower the bid each year to get the work and in
the end it will be done by contract stiffs with low wages and few benefits. Some powerful
Senator will have the data center moved to some backwater location in a backwater state. Then the construction people will get rich building a new facility so that the contractors can hire
undereducated hicks for lower wages and less benefits. And then they will decide that the
system needs to be fixed, so they will lease a new facility with new systems and the contractors
will hire more people at even lower wages. And so on and so on.

The thing will be a cash cow, but not because of federal wages. The cash drain will be pure
politics as usual

Re: OT - No-Call list

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Mathias:

In the US congress writes federal law. If it violated the constitution the courts would be
expected to vacate the law. Usually they do.

I suppose I should clarify: I am a constructionist. I believe the Founding Fathers had an unbelievable amount of wisdom they put into our country's Constitution. They were very adamant about restricting the power of the Federal government. Sure Congress passes laws, for the most part they pass laws to keep thier asses in Congress, by appeasing what ever group they think will get them the most votes come election time. I don't see where my Federal tax dollars should be going to pay for a railroad company (AMTRAK) that for the most part only benefits people in a handful of East coast states. I don't see where my Federal tax dollars should be going to pay for an educational system that is graduating kids that can't read or write, then sending them to college, many times on government grants, so they can take remedial courses just so they can get up to a level where they can take the regular college courses. I don't see where my Federal tax dollars should be going to pay for a system to keep telemarketers from calling me. I pay for an unlisted number and caller ID for the main reason of keeping those calls to a minimum. I don't see where my Federal tax dollars should be going to pay for ad infinitum ad nauseum . The Federal government has become a nightmare of bloated bueracracy and all three branches have ignored the Constitution for about a hundred years. It makes me want to go on a John Brown killing spree through our nation's capitol.

/rant off

As to the federal jobs, that is a myth based on the way things used to be. Work like this will be
done by contractors. And the contractors will lower the bid each year to get the work and in
the end it will be done by contract stiffs with low wages and few benefits. Some powerful
Senator will have the data center moved to some backwater location in a backwater state. Then the construction people will get rich building a new facility so that the contractors can hire
undereducated hicks for lower wages and less benefits. And then they will decide that the
system needs to be fixed, so they will lease a new facility with new systems and the contractors
will hire more people at even lower wages. And so on and so on.

The thing will be a cash cow, but not because of federal wages. The cash drain will be pure
politics as usual

On this I will agree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Mathias Ice

Hey, looky there, this post promoted me! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 11, 2003, 04:17: Message edited by: Mathias_Ice ]

Re: OT - No-Call list

Oh, I'm completely disgusted with telemarketers; I'm not against any form of torture which encourages them to seek new employment. I'm not even against state laws. I simply don't see the justification for the federal government to get involved. I'm not libertarian, but I do prefer private action to government action, and state government action to federal government action. And that's the principle of the matter to me, not the subject involved.

[ July 11, 2003, 04:33: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: OT - No-Call list

Quote:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Oh, I'm completely disgusted with telemarketers; I'm not against any form of torture which encourages them to seek new employment. I'm not even against state laws. I simply don't see the justification for the federal government to get involved. I'm not libertarian, but I do prefer private action to government action, and state government action to federal government action. And that's the principle of the matter to me, not the subject involved.

Amen, brother!!

Re: OT - No-Call list

like i said, just hang up. if they send email, don't respond. we rarely get spam of any kind.

Re: OT - No-Call list

Quote:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
I'm not even against state laws. I simply don't see the justification for the federal government to get involved.

Well, I can sort of see your point here then, but there are somethings that the states just aren't capable of dealing with. Phone communications cross state lines. Who has the jurisdiction to make and enforce the laws concerning their use? The state where the telemarketers are calling from, or my state? How do you enforce it. How do you even know what the laws are? What about calls origniating in one state going to another and routing through phone company switches in a third state. What if it's illegal in the third state. Can they step in and enforce it? What if the telemarketrs are calling from out of the country?

What you end up with is a bunch of lawyers running around in each state trying to enforce rulings that may or may not be possible to enforce, or even legal to enforce when issues of jurisdiction are given a constitutional test. A lot of duplication of effort and inefficency. And a lot of wasted time with the cases that end up getting transfered to other states or thrown out alltogether.

No, this is one case where the federal goverment actually has the potential to be more efficent then the states. Doesn't happen often, but there are times. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo