Resurgence of telemarketers and telephishers
hchi...@hotmail.com
been plagued with telemarketers. Once we got on the DNC registry, the
local businesses seem to have stopped, but the pre-recorded calls from
"Heather, from account services" and "Your vehicle warantee is about
to expire" are becoming as much of a pain as we had in the bad old
days.
I've filed a complaint with the FCC, since it appears that the FTC is
doing squat to stop this type of problem. Realisticly, filing a
complaint with the local cops, like the phone companies want people to
do, is bullshit. A lot of the problem appears to be coming from 207
area codes, VOIP gateways, and other essentially un-traceable (by the
consumer) numbers.
TIme for me to get a boat airhorn, dust off my info on incoming call
filtering devices, and start bitchin to tv stations and the like.
Unless this is stopped soon, it'll get a lot worse.
sarge137
> Ever since getting the new phone number in Alabama, our lines have
> been plagued with telemarketers. Once we got on the DNC registry, the
> local businesses seem to have stopped, but the pre-recorded calls from
> "Heather, from account services" and "Your vehicle warantee is about
> to expire" are becoming as much of a pain as we had in the bad old
> days.
Absolutely correct. To say nothing of the charities and political
action groups which are exempt from the DNC registry. A deliberate,
but ridiculous exemption in my opinion. Some of those outfits are
bigger crooks than the telemarketers.
> I've filed a complaint with the FCC, since it appears that the FTC is
> doing squat to stop this type of problem. Realisticly, filing a
> complaint with the local cops, like the phone companies want people to
> do, is bullshit. A lot of the problem appears to be coming from 207
> area codes, VOIP gateways, and other essentially un-traceable (by the
> consumer) numbers.
Also absolutely correct. The FTC is the agency which is ostensibly in
charge of this problem, but they're simply ignoring it. They may have
assigned a few people to it because they have to, but clearly it's not
real high on their priority list. The phone companies referring
complaints to the local police is simply a mechanism to get you off
their lines without admitting they can't/won't do anything for you.
Unless the call is originating locally your local police have no
jurisdiction and can't do anything about it, even if they want to. At
best they forward your complaint "for action deemed appropriate" -
which is most likely shredding or circular filing.
> TIme for me to get a boat airhorn, dust off my info on incoming call
> filtering devices, and start bitchin to tv stations and the like.
Anonymous call rejection is part on the caller ID service provided by
my local phone company. People who block their calls don't even ring
my phone. They get a recording telling them how to unblock their line
and call me back. Activating that feature has reduced the kind of
calls you refer to substantially. Only a few of my friends actually
block their lines, and don't mind adding a few key strokes to the
number when they call me. No legitimate business would ever block
it's line. My caller ID is in my handset so if it's unknown, out of
area, or I don't recognize it, I just let the answering machine
answer. About 99% of the time when the recording comes up, they hang
up. Every once in a while I'll answer one those calls just to screw
with them. It's amazing how long they'll stay on the phone if they
think you're going to buy or donate! And, I've performed a public
service - they've lost the opportunity to pester at least three or
four other people while I'm playing with them.
> Unless this is stopped soon, it'll get a lot worse.
I share your pain, but don't count on the government to stop it. We
have to protect ourselves. These calls are made because they work,
and will stop only when people stop answering, or unceremoniously hang
up.
Regards,
Sarge
George Grapman
I have anonymous call rejection also. Every so often I still see
"Unknown number". I never answer and they never leave a message so I
know it is telemarketers.
At times, I do what you suggested even getting to the point of giving
them the start of a credit card number before telling them another call
came in. Five minutes later I return and ask if many people hang up the
phone on them. When they say,yes" I explain that those people did them a
favor and allowed them to find another victim whereas a person like me
with no intention of buying prevented them from calling potential
victims. I then hit the mute button and listen to them curse. Even
funnier when they think no one heard them. One call like that can ruin
their day.
Another tactic is simply telling them you like to know who you are
doing business with and asking for the company name and address. They
often ask me to hold and I say, "sure, I know that is a tough question".
If you can determine they are in your state you can threaten them
with small claims court. I have done this 7 times. Each time I
threatened to sue for $500, offered to accept $100 if sent within three
days and told them that after suing I would not settle for less than
$250 plus costs to settle beforehand. 5 companies promptly coughed up
$100 and the other two the higher amount after I filed.
If a 5 percent of us did that it would put a real dent in their
practices.
hchi...@hotmail.com
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> Another tactic is simply telling them you like to know who you are
>doing business with and asking for the company name and address. They
>often ask me to hold and I say, "sure, I know that is a tough question".
> If you can determine they are in your state you can threaten them
>with small claims court. I have done this 7 times. Each time I
>threatened to sue for $500, offered to accept $100 if sent within three
>days and told them that after suing I would not settle for less than
>$250 plus costs to settle beforehand. 5 companies promptly coughed up
>$100 and the other two the higher amount after I filed.
> If a 5 percent of us did that it would put a real dent in their
>practices.
George, these aren't legit companies that are calling, that is part of
the point. These are criminals who are trying to get credit card
numbers so they can commit credit card fraud. I've tried getting
information, but as soon as they get a question that lets them know
they could get caught, they hang up. I've scoured the net and no-one
seems to have been able to have any success in finding an address or
even legit call-back number.
When it is a legit company, your tactic can work. When it isn't, and
the call is untraceable, and the phone company and government don't do
anything about it, it shows the absolute powerlessness of them to
thrwart penny-ante hackers and criminals, much less terrorists.
With the number of calls reported on the net, all with the same M.O.,
what is going on is an organized ring of crooks making a mockery of
the system. Unfortunately, it takes high-tech tools and access to the
system to find these assholes, so the consumer is S.O.o.L.
George Grapman
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:22:22 GMT, George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Another tactic is simply telling them you like to know who you are
>> doing business with and asking for the company name and address. They
>> often ask me to hold and I say, "sure, I know that is a tough question".
>> If you can determine they are in your state you can threaten them
>> with small claims court. I have done this 7 times. Each time I
>> threatened to sue for $500, offered to accept $100 if sent within three
>> days and told them that after suing I would not settle for less than
>> $250 plus costs to settle beforehand. 5 companies promptly coughed up
>> $100 and the other two the higher amount after I filed.
>> If a 5 percent of us did that it would put a real dent in their
>> practices.
>
> George, these aren't legit companies that are calling, that is part of
> the point. These are criminals who are trying to get credit card
> numbers so they can commit credit card fraud. I've tried getting
> information, but as soon as they get a question that lets them know
> they could get caught, they hang up. I've scoured the net and no-one
> seems to have been able to have any success in finding an address or
> even legit call-back number.
I understand. There is little you can do about the true scammers other
than ignore them or waste their time. I recent got a slew of recorded
messages telling me I had been approved for a loan. The "apply "option
only got me automated prompts asking for my checking account details.
Yesterday A caller wanted my credit card number. I asked if she would
give it to stranger and she tried to convince me that lacking a
signature no one could use the card. When mentioned internet and phone
purchases acted as if she had never heard of them.. They called back
today and I explained to the lady in great detail what her voice was
doing to me. She hung up.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
> Every once in a while I'll answer one those calls just to screw
> with them. It's amazing how long they'll stay on the phone if they
> think you're going to buy or donate! And, I've performed a public
> service - they've lost the opportunity to pester at least three or
> four other people while I'm playing with them.
Would you do the same thing with a cashier at a fast-food joint?
The people who work at those companies are not the problem -- they are
usually people who are unskilled and so desperate for work that they
have to take a job they hate in order to make ends meet. And many times
they are lured to the job by false pretenses and don't know the real
story.
--
Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your
work with excellence.
Chloe
news:dhnvo39oag49ktptc...@4ax.com...
I don't understand why you're even talking to them long enough to know
they're trying to get a credit card number. I just say "not
interested"--because I'm such a courteous person, dontcha know, and hang up.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
> phone on them. When they say,yes" I explain that those people did them a
> favor and allowed them to find another victim whereas a person like me
> with no intention of buying prevented them from calling potential
> victims. I then hit the mute button and listen to them curse. Even
> funnier when they think no one heard them. One call like that can ruin
> their day.
I feel really sorry for people like you who think that it is okay to
abuse innocent people.
> Another tactic is simply telling them you like to know who you are
> doing business with and asking for the company name and address. They
> often ask me to hold and I say, "sure, I know that is a tough question".
Maybe they don't *know* what company they are telemarketing for. Maybe
they aren't allowed to say and have to refer people to a supervisor.
> If you can determine they are in your state you can threaten them with
> small claims court.
Most of them are out of state, but suing the company is a more effective
way of shutting them down than abusing the employees, which is
equivalent to abusing a waitress because the cook messed up your order.
The only difference is that those people are too cowardly to abuse
someone to their face when the problem is not their fault.
> If a 5 percent of us did that it would put a real dent in their
> practices.
And if 100% of the people refused to buy from or even talk to
telemarketers, it would put them out of business even faster.
George Grapman
> George Grapman wrote:
>> phone on them. When they say,yes" I explain that those people did them
>> a favor and allowed them to find another victim whereas a person like
>> me with no intention of buying prevented them from calling potential
>> victims. I then hit the mute button and listen to them curse. Even
>> funnier when they think no one heard them. One call like that can ruin
>> their day.
>
> I feel really sorry for people like you who think that it is okay to
> abuse innocent people.
Two times in my life I worked in offices that were scams and whose
only purpose was to get a quick payment from a person. I figured out
what was going on very quickly ,quit and notified the proper authorities.
>
>> Another tactic is simply telling them you like to know who you are
>> doing business with and asking for the company name and address. They
>> often ask me to hold and I say, "sure, I know that is a tough question".
>
> Maybe they don't *know* what company they are telemarketing for. Maybe
> they aren't allowed to say and have to refer people to a supervisor.
>
Some of my early jobs were very low level ,albeit honest,
telemarketing jobs. I never has one where I was told not to give the
name of the company,the address or phone number. One has to be extremely
clueless not to question a policy that prohibits revealing those basic
facts especially when they are asking for a credit card.
Anthony Matonak
>> Every once in a while I'll answer one those calls just to screw
>> with them.
>
Would you do the same thing to a mugger or a burglar?
> The people who work at those companies are not the problem -- they are
> usually people who are unskilled and so desperate for work that they
> have to take a job they hate in order to make ends meet. And many times
> they are lured to the job by false pretenses and don't know the real story.
Sure, the guy who pulls a knife on you and demands your money is so
desperate that they have to do something they hate to make ends meet.
This doesn't make it right or legal. This doesn't mean this guy should
be treated the same as people who do not steal.
Telemarketers who don't honor the 'do not call' list (in the USA) are
breaking the law and people working for them are also breaking the law.
That makes them all criminals. Criminals who are trying to screw you,
even if it's only over the telephone, should not be treated like honest
citizens.
Anthony
hchi...@hotmail.com
reply <mme...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
>The people who work at those companies are not the problem -- they are
>usually people who are unskilled and so desperate for work that they
>have to take a job they hate in order to make ends meet. And many times
>they are lured to the job by false pretenses and don't know the real
>story.
No, they really are part of the problem. A person who aids in a
robbery whare a murder is commited can be charged with murder in many
states, even theough the person did not commit the actual act.
The problem with these calls is not only that they are illegal from
the DNC standpoint, but more importantly, they are an attempt to gain
information for illegal purposes and to the detriment of the person
being called. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out when a
"company" is engaged in such tactics. The people doing the calling
are not desparate unskilled workers, but scum of the earth types with
no sense of morals.
Many years ago, when I lived in Vermont and between jobs, the state
employment office was sending people to interviews with a company that
had sloppy ethics. Within fifteen minutes, out of a crowd of about
thirty people, the "interviewer" had singled out five of us who had
raised eyebrows or questions, told us we weren't right for the work,
and asked us to leave.
George Grapman
called is on the Do Not Call law and asks why you are breaking that law
you have to know that you are breaking the law.
When you are asking for peoples credit card information and are told
not to give out any details about your location or employer you have to
know something is wrong.
As I noted most of my jobs have been in sales and I could not imagine
refusing to give out such information.
George Grapman
At a really desperate point I had a job interview with a collection
agency. The office was real boiler room. While waiting for the interview
I heard things like. "Mr. Jones, have you ever spent time in jail?" and
"Mrs. Smith, if you do not make a payment by Friday we will see that you
are fired from your job". I walked out.
Another time I got a job with a company that said they were selling
ads in the programs of local sports teams.I asked to see some copies to
get an idea and was only given a mock up of a page with prices. I was
told the printer would be sending copies "soon". I was told to offer a
25 percent discount if they paid a courier the same day. The final clue
was when someones phone rang and the manager yelled "We never,ever
answer the phones on the sales desks".
Out the door 15 minutes after I entered.
In the first instance a complaint to the state agency regulating
collection agencies was never answered. In the second case the fraud
unit of the District Attorney returned my call and asked enough things
to indicate they were already looking into this. A few weeks later
there was a story about the owner facing multiple fraud charges.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> Telemarketers who don't honor the 'do not call' list (in the USA) are
> breaking the law and people working for them are also breaking the law.
> That makes them all criminals. Criminals who are trying to screw you,
> even if it's only over the telephone, should not be treated like honest
> citizens.
The point is, the person who is calling you does not know that they are
breaking the law, and they are not knowingly breaking it.
When my oldest son had a paper route and started messing up big-time,
his customers started calling me and cursing a blue streak in *my* ear.
I tried to get them to call the newspaper and complain or to wait
until he got home and curse a blue streak in *his* ear, and none of them
would do that.
It wasn't my fault that he wasn't delivering papers properly. In fact,
I had tried to tell him that he needed to get on the ball again and he
ignored me. Their yelling at me did not get their newspaper delivered
on time, as (A) it was not my responsibility to get it delivered on
time, and (B) the person whose responsibility it was was not listening
to me.
It was not right, fair, or proper for those customers to be abusing me
for something that was not my fault. Neither is it right, proper, or
fair for you to abuse the telemarketer who calls you for something that
is not their fault.
And if you were smart enough to get out of the telemarketing job, more
power to you. Not everybody has those options.
No, I am not a telemarketer, but I have known a few and understand their
plight.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> No, they really are part of the problem. A person who aids in a
> robbery whare a murder is commited can be charged with murder in many
> states, even theough the person did not commit the actual act.
There are currently a bunch of jobs offered to people these days to be
payment or package processors. These innocent people are told that they
receive payments or packages as a central receiving source and then
forward them on to the appropriate person.
Then the police knock on their doors and arrest them for defrauding
people by credit card or taking money in an advance-fee type of scam.
They may be part of the problem, and legally they are accountable, but
sometimes they are ignorant and have been scammed just as much as the
people who had their money stolen.
George Grapman
>>
>> Telemarketers who don't honor the 'do not call' list (in the USA) are
>> breaking the law and people working for them are also breaking the law.
>> That makes them all criminals. Criminals who are trying to screw you,
>> even if it's only over the telephone, should not be treated like honest
>> citizens.
>
> The point is, the person who is calling you does not know that they are
> breaking the law, and they are not knowingly breaking it.
How many times does someone have to be told "I am on the do not call
list, you are violating the law" before they get a clue?
George Grapman
> hchi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> No, they really are part of the problem. A person who aids in a
>> robbery whare a murder is commited can be charged with murder in many
>> states, even theough the person did not commit the actual act.
>
> There are currently a bunch of jobs offered to people these days to be
> payment or package processors. These innocent people are told that they
> receive payments or packages as a central receiving source and then
> forward them on to the appropriate person.
>
> Then the police knock on their doors and arrest them for defrauding
> people by credit card or taking money in an advance-fee type of scam.
>
> They may be part of the problem, and legally they are accountable, but
> sometimes they are ignorant and have been scammed just as much as the
> people who had their money stolen.
>
doing business in the US makes up some reason for needing a dollar based
US bank account and says they can not get one on their own. Simply
accept the deposits and they will give you a generous commission. Please
reply with your name, address, account number and routing information.
SpammersDie
> telemarketers, it would put them out of business even faster.
Come back when you have a workable solution.
Hint: A solution that falls apart if 500 million points of failure don't all
perform flawlessly is an idealist's dream, not a workable solution. As is
well evidenced in the human race's continued failure to exterminate these
telemarketing scourge from the planet.
Anthony Matonak
>>
>> Telemarketers who don't honor the 'do not call' list (in the USA) are
>
> The point is, the person who is calling you does not know that they are
> breaking the law, and they are not knowingly breaking it.
They gotta know they are doing something wrong from peoples reactions.
Once the first person informs them what they are doing is illegal and
they continue then they are knowingly breaking the law. I would find it
remarkable if they could do the job a single day without learning both
that it's wrong and illegal.
> It was not right, fair, or proper for those customers to be abusing me
> for something that was not my fault. Neither is it right, proper, or
> fair for you to abuse the telemarketer who calls you for something that
> is not their fault.
The difference is that it IS the telemarketers fault. They are the one
breaking the law. They are responsible for their own actions. It is only
right, proper and fair to defend yourself against those who would abuse
you over the phone through telemarketing.
Anthony
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
And it is possible to "defend yourself" just by telling them you are not
interested or just to hang up the phone nicely when you hear that it's a
telemarketer without ladling a whole heap of abuse on the poor person
calling you on the phone.
Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
>> It was not right, fair, or proper for those customers to be abusing me
>> for something that was not my fault. Neither is it right, proper, or
>> fair for you to abuse the telemarketer who calls you for something
>> that is not their fault.
>
> The difference is that it IS the telemarketers fault. They are the one
> breaking the law. They are responsible for their own actions. It is only
> right, proper and fair to defend yourself against those who would abuse
> you over the phone through telemarketing.
Rod Speed
> The person calling you on the phone is not legally responsible.
Wrong.
> And it is possible to "defend yourself" just by telling them you are not interested or just to hang up the phone
> nicely when you hear that it's a telemarketer
Yes, its certainly possible. But it makes a lot more sense to rub the
stupid monkey's nose in the fact that what they are doing is illegal.
> without ladling a whole heap of abuse on the poor person calling you on the phone.
If they are actually stupid/immoral enough to keep doing that they are
repeatedly told is illegal, they should be abused by everyone they call.
sarge137
<mmea...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> sarge137 wrote:
> > Every once in a while I'll answer one those calls just to screw
> > with them. It's amazing how long they'll stay on the phone if they
> > think you're going to buy or donate! And, I've performed a public
> > service - they've lost the opportunity to pester at least three or
> > four other people while I'm playing with them.
>
> Would you do the same thing with a cashier at a fast-food joint?
Uh, yeah - if they were lying and stealing like telemarketers.
> The people who work at those companies are not the problem -- they are
> usually people who are unskilled and so desperate for work that they
> have to take a job they hate in order to make ends meet. And many times
> they are lured to the job by false pretenses and don't know the real
> story.
Oh please! It's 2008 - anyone without job skills is stupid and lazy,
not worth my sympathy. The people who work at these companies are as
much a part of the problem as the idiots who actually do business with
them. They're trained, monitored and critiqued. They know exactly
what they're doing.
Sarge
sfge...@paccbell.net
That is like saying that if someone asks you to bring a package over
the border you are not responsible for determining the contents. As
another poster noted once a few people have mentioned to Do Not Call law
you have been made ware that the law is being broken.
sfge...@paccbell.net
When i ask for their company name they often hang up the phone.
Obviously they were told to do that similar the office I mentioned where
we were told never to answer the phone. I can not believe that some who
is told those things can thing it is a legitimate business.
I do business to business sales and I gladly give people my
name,company name and address,phone and cell (all of which are on my
cards).When I meet a prospective client I sometimes offer them my home
phone in case they have problems after the sale. I can not imagine a
situation where I would have an reluctance to give out that information
but,of course, we offer real products and services.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> Oh please! It's 2008 - anyone without job skills is stupid and lazy,
> not worth my sympathy.
I guess this is more the problem than the people telemarketing, because
your statement is totally untrue. Not that SOME people without job
skills might not be, but there are still lots of people around who are
handicapped by how and/or where they were raised and aren't fortunate
enough to be able to pay for job training, and public schools are doing
worse and worse these days.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> I have had numerous callers ask for my credit card or checking info.
> When i ask for their company name they often hang up the phone.
> Obviously they were told to do that similar the office I mentioned where
> we were told never to answer the phone. I can not believe that some who
> is told those things can thing it is a legitimate business.
I will concede that if they are asking for your money, they should tell
you who you are paying. But lots of people carrying the label
"telemarketer" are only people opening a door, appointment setting,
trying to collect names of people who are interested, etc., and those
people might be working for a telemarketing service and not actually
know who the end-user business is.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
> Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>> The person calling you on the phone is not legally responsible.
>
> That is like saying that if someone asks you to bring a package over
> the border you are not responsible for determining the contents. As
> another poster noted once a few people have mentioned to Do Not Call law
> you have been made ware that the law is being broken.
No, it's not. If you prosecute, the person who is talking on the phone
is merely a pawn and will not be prosecuted for what they did; only the
company who authorized it to be done.
George Grapman
> sarge137 wrote:
>>
>> Oh please! It's 2008 - anyone without job skills is stupid and lazy,
>> not worth my sympathy.
>
> I guess this is more the problem than the people telemarketing, because
> your statement is totally untrue. Not that SOME people without job
> skills might not be, but there are still lots of people around who are
> handicapped by how and/or where they were raised and aren't fortunate
> enough to be able to pay for job training, and public schools are doing
> worse and worse these days.
>
skills to at least read off of a canned pitch can not see a problem when
person after person tells them they are violating the law.
George Grapman
> sfge...@paccbell.net wrote:
>>
>> I have had numerous callers ask for my credit card or checking info.
>> When i ask for their company name they often hang up the phone.
>> Obviously they were told to do that similar the office I mentioned
>> where we were told never to answer the phone. I can not believe that
>> some who is told those things can thing it is a legitimate business.
>
> I will concede that if they are asking for your money, they should tell
> you who you are paying. But lots of people carrying the label
> "telemarketer" are only people opening a door, appointment setting,
> trying to collect names of people who are interested, etc., and those
> people might be working for a telemarketing service and not actually
> know who the end-user business is.
>
to reveal anything?
By the way, we are currently hiring people to call businesses to set
appointments and are paying them a decent amount just to get in the
door. I do not believe in canned pitches but have told people that at
the very start they are to give their name and the name of the company.
George Grapman
> sfge...@paccbell.net wrote:
>> Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>>> The person calling you on the phone is not legally responsible.
>>
>> That is like saying that if someone asks you to bring a package over
>> the border you are not responsible for determining the contents. As
>> another poster noted once a few people have mentioned to Do Not Call
>> law you have been made ware that the law is being broken.
>
> No, it's not. If you prosecute, the person who is talking on the phone
> is merely a pawn and will not be prosecuted for what they did; only the
> company who authorized it to be done.
>
I am not an attorney and will have to look this up later but there is
some legal principal involved regarding complicity if it is obvious that
a law is being broken. Granted, I have never read of a telemarketer
being charged but as I noted if caller after caller asks why you are
violating the law that should be a warning sign.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> Agreed, but wouldn't you be suspicious if your employer told you not
> to reveal anything?
Well, I suppose my attitudes are colored by the fact that decades ago as
a young adult, I worked at a market research company conducting market
research surveys and inviting people to paid focus groups, things that
would not be covered by the DNC list today, and we were not even told
who we were conducting the research for in order to get objective
opinions.
> By the way, we are currently hiring people to call businesses to set
> appointments and are paying them a decent amount just to get in the
> door. I do not believe in canned pitches but have told people that at
> the very start they are to give their name and the name of the company.
That sounds reasonable to me. But since I have very poor audio
retention, I honestly never, EVER listen to telemarketers because I know
they are generally paid on commission and have to be desperate for work
to work at a place like that, so I don't take up their time.
Rod Speed
> sfge...@paccbell.net wrote:
>> Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>>> The person calling you on the phone is not legally responsible.
>>
>> That is like saying that if someone asks you to bring a package
>> over the border you are not responsible for determining the
>> contents. As another poster noted once a few people have mentioned
>> to Do Not Call law you have been made ware that the law is being
>> broken.
>
> No, it's not. If you prosecute, the person who is talking on the
> phone is merely a pawn and will not be prosecuted for what they did;
> only the company who authorized it to be done.
Irrelevant to whether the monkey is involved in illegal activity.
The reason the employer is prosecuted is because once the employer
is forced to change its behaviour, the illegal activity stops. If they
prosecute the monkey, the employer just employs another monkey.
Rod Speed
> sfge...@paccbell.net wrote:
>>
>> I have had numerous callers ask for my credit card or checking
>> info. When i ask for their company name they often hang up the phone.
>> Obviously they were told to do that similar the office I mentioned
>> where we were told never to answer the phone. I can not believe that
>> some who is told those things can thing it is a legitimate business.
>
> I will concede that if they are asking for your money, they should
> tell you who you are paying. But lots of people carrying the label
> "telemarketer" are only people opening a door, appointment setting,
> trying to collect names of people who are interested, etc., and those
> people might be working for a telemarketing service and not actually
> know who the end-user business is.
Then they would say that and not just hang up.
Rod Speed
> George Grapman wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, but wouldn't you be suspicious if your employer told you
>> not to reveal anything?
>
> Well, I suppose my attitudes are colored by the fact that decades ago
> as a young adult, I worked at a market research company conducting
> market research surveys and inviting people to paid focus groups,
> things that would not be covered by the DNC list today, and we were
> not even told who we were conducting the research for in order to get
> objective opinions.
You were told who you were working for tho and
could have said that, the research operation.
>> By the way, we are currently hiring people to call businesses to
>> set appointments and are paying them a decent amount just to get in
>> the door. I do not believe in canned pitches but have told people
>> that at the very start they are to give their name and the name of
>> the company.
> That sounds reasonable to me. But since I have very poor audio
> retention, I honestly never, EVER listen to telemarketers because I
> know they are generally paid on commission and have to be desperate
> for work to work at a place like that, so I don't take up their time.
So you arent in any position to be able to say what they say.
Rod Speed
> sarge137 wrote:
>>
>> Oh please! It's 2008 - anyone without job skills is stupid and lazy,
>> not worth my sympathy.
>
> I guess this is more the problem than the people telemarketing,
> because your statement is totally untrue. Not that SOME people
> without job skills might not be, but there are still lots of people
> around who are handicapped by how and/or where they were raised and
> aren't fortunate enough to be able to pay for job training, and
> public schools are doing worse and worse these days.
You dont have to pay for it, anyone with a clue can
find a decent job when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
liable for something has no bearing to whether they would be prosecuted
for the crime?
Rod Speed wrote:
> Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply <mme...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
>> sfge...@paccbell.net wrote:
>>> Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>>>> The person calling you on the phone is not legally responsible.
>>> That is like saying that if someone asks you to bring a package
>>> over the border you are not responsible for determining the
>>> contents. As another poster noted once a few people have mentioned
>>> to Do Not Call law you have been made ware that the law is being
>>> broken.
>> No, it's not. If you prosecute, the person who is talking on the
>> phone is merely a pawn and will not be prosecuted for what they did;
>> only the company who authorized it to be done.
>
> Irrelevant to whether the monkey is involved in illegal activity.
--
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> You dont have to pay for it, anyone with a clue can
> find a decent job when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
Not in my area. It's hard for anybody to get a "starter job" around
here because all the immigrants, legal or il-, have them all snapped up.
George Grapman
>>
>> Agreed, but wouldn't you be suspicious if your employer told you
>> not to reveal anything?
>
> Well, I suppose my attitudes are colored by the fact that decades ago as
> a young adult, I worked at a market research company conducting market
> research surveys and inviting people to paid focus groups, things that
> would not be covered by the DNC list today, and we were not even told
> who we were conducting the research for in order to get objective opinions.
I have participated in many focus groups. Sometimes they are very
clear about who the client is other times they are not. Sometimes it was
very obvious as they had me go to a web site to conduct transaction.
Other times it was a secret. I did a mock trial on a tobacco law
suit.During the "deliberations" the person running the group got into
the face of those who sided with the plaintiff. I assumed the tobacco
people were picking up the tab but then considered the possibility that
he was playing devils advocate.
One time the phone screens asked a bunch of questions. The last one
was whether I was taking any prescription medications. When I said,no"
she told me the good news was I was health but the bad news was I did
not qualify.
>
>> By the way, we are currently hiring people to call businesses to set
>> appointments and are paying them a decent amount just to get in the
>> door. I do not believe in canned pitches but have told people that at
>> the very start they are to give their name and the name of the company.
>
> That sounds reasonable to me. But since I have very poor audio
> retention, I honestly never, EVER listen to telemarketers because I know
> they are generally paid on commission and have to be desperate for work
> to work at a place like that, so I don't take up their time.
>
It is a different situation when calling businesses because the
people answering the phone are doing that all day had have to pay
attention to each call. I am often able to get cooperation because I
sell phone systems and while the person answering the phone is not the
decision maker they sometimes will be very helpful because if they have
a bad system that person is the one dealing with problems every day.
George Grapman
Speaking of focus groups and since this is a frugal living group the
local craigslist jobs often have them under the "ETC" category. Even if
you do not qualify they will keep you on file and contact you down the
road. I have been spoiled by enough decent paying ones that I will not
do any for less than $75 an hour.
Also, they over book so two times I was sent home with a check without
participating. Once I arrived 15 minutes early , had the sandwiches and
coffee that they offered and was sent home. The receptionist apologized.
I told her anytime that she wanted to pay me $100 to eat some food and
leave I would be happy to oblige.
Getting back to telemarketers the only surveys I will do are public
opinion polls and I hang up if they turn out to be push polls. When it
is a consumer survey I ask if I will be paid. When they sat "no" I ask
if the caller is being paid and if the survey firm is being paid. I then
politely tell them that I see no reason to donate my time to a for
profit endeavor.
John Weiss
> It was not right, fair, or proper for those customers to be abusing me for
> something that was not my fault. Neither is it right, proper, or fair for you
> to abuse the telemarketer who calls you for something that is not their fault.
Bad analogy.
YOU were not the one who took the newspaper job, so YOU were not responsible for
its proper fulfillment.
OTOH, the telemarketer IS the one responsible for the proper fulfillment of his
job. It would only take a simple question and a minute or 2 of listening during
the job interview to determine whether the employer was properly screening the
call list.
> And if you were smart enough to get out of the telemarketing job, more power
> to you. Not everybody has those options.
Wrong again! EVERYBODY has the option of leaving their jobs! It may be a
difficult decision to leave what is perceived to be the "only" available job
because of improprieties or illegalities, but the option still exists. A
telemarketer who continues to work under those conditions is as responsible as
his employer.
> --
> Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your work
> with excellence.
Great platitude; sounds like you don't really believe it, though...
John Weiss
>> You dont have to pay for it, anyone with a clue can
>> find a decent job when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
>
> Not in my area. It's hard for anybody to get a "starter job" around here
> because all the immigrants, legal or il-, have them all snapped up.
BS!
I cannot believe that "anybody" who really WANTS to get a job cannot get one
that is sought after by an illegal immigrant. More likely, "anybody" is
UNWILLING to work for the wages paid to the immigrants, legal or illegal.
John Weiss
> The person calling you on the phone is not legally responsible.
I see... So you contend that as long as a telemarketer is not subject to jail
time for his illegal or improper actions on the behalf of his employer, it's OK
to continue?
Also, are you sure that a telemarketer who KNOWINGLY makes calls to DNC list
numbers is not responsible?
> And it is possible to "defend yourself" just by telling them you are not
> interested or just to hang up the phone nicely when you hear that it's a
> telemarketer without ladling a whole heap of abuse on the poor person calling
> you on the phone.
It is possible, but not necessary. I submit that I can use ANY appropriate
means to "defend myself" against a criminal or agent of a criminal.
By your own logic, it is not illegal for me to "heap abuse" on the telemarketer,
so it's OK for me to do it.
.
Rod Speed
> Excuse me, but are you really saying that whether someone is legally
> liable for something has no bearing to whether they would be prosecuted for the crime?
Nope. I am saying that it makes more sense to prosecute the employer
to make it change its activity than to prosecute the monkey when the
employer can just get another monkey if that monkey stops doing that
work because its been prosecuted for doing that illegal activity.
Just like any operation with a clue prosecutes the drug
dealers and doesnt waste their time on the end users.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Melinda Meahan <mme...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>>> sarge137 wrote:
>>>> Oh please! It's 2008 - anyone without job skills is stupid and lazy, not worth my sympathy.
>>> I guess this is more the problem than the people telemarketing,
>>> because your statement is totally untrue. Not that SOME people
>>> without job skills might not be, but there are still lots of people
>>> around who are handicapped by how and/or where they were raised and aren't fortunate enough to be able to pay for
>>> job training, and public schools are doing worse and worse these days.
>> You dont have to pay for it, anyone with a clue can
>> find a decent job when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
> Not in my area.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Name the area and lets see if there is general agreement on your claim.
Bet there isnt.
> It's hard for anybody to get a "starter job" around here
I didnt say starter job.
> because all the immigrants, legal or il-, have them all snapped up.
So how did those manage to pay for the training that you claim is the only way to get those jobs ?
Those always have the disadvantage that the english often leaves a lot to be desired.
If you cant compete with those for decent jobs, there must be something wrong with you, like your attitudes etc.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
> Name the area and lets see if there is general agreement on your claim.
San Francisco Bay Area, central Contra Costa County, and I speak of the
experiences of four children and a number of acquaintances.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> Other times it was a secret. I did a mock trial on a tobacco law
> suit.During the "deliberations" the person running the group got into
> the face of those who sided with the plaintiff. I assumed the tobacco
> people were picking up the tab but then considered the possibility that
> he was playing devils advocate.
Could have been. It was certainly the party on one side of a lawsuit.
> One time the phone screens asked a bunch of questions. The last one was
> whether I was taking any prescription medications. When I said,no" she
> told me the good news was I was health but the bad news was I did not
> qualify.
ROTFL!!!!
The last two people who called me with surveys were (a) someone who was
calling from Nielsen (sp? the people who do tv program ratings) and
when they said that, I told them that we don't do network TV so I might
not be able to answer their survey, and they insisted that it didn't
matter that I didn't do network TV, so I said okay, and the first
question was what TV network did I watch most often, and (b) someone
calling from some market research survey place asking if I would take a
survey, and I answered, as I always do, that I will do it unless it's a
political survey, because I had to conduct too many manipulative and
deceptive political surveys during my short stint during my younger
years, and they insisted it was not a political survey, so I agreed to
do the survey, and the first question was how I felt about how the
President was doing his job, to which I replied that I was sorry, but
that was, too, a political survey and as I had already said, I would not
participate in a political survey.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
work options and who were not lazy and/or st&pid. And no, not everybody
has the option of leaving their job. If you were a single parent with
several children, you wouldn't want your children to starve or to be
kicked out of the apartment that was so difficult to acquire because you
are a single parent with several children, and so leaving a lousy job
would not really be an option. I mean, sure you could quit, but at the
cost of your children suffering? If you were a good parent, flat-out
quitting would not be an option.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> Also, are you sure that a telemarketer who KNOWINGLY makes calls to DNC list
> numbers is not responsible?
Many, if not most, telemarketing companies have war dialers so you just
pick up the phone to talk to the next person. At least, all the ones I
have heard of do.
George Grapman
> John Weiss wrote:
>>
>> Also, are you sure that a telemarketer who KNOWINGLY makes calls to
>> DNC list numbers is not responsible?
>
> Many, if not most, telemarketing companies have war dialers so you just
> pick up the phone to talk to the next person. At least, all the ones I
> have heard of do.
>
list. The person making the calls can assume , until shown otherwise,
that the company is complying.
I work at home. When I upgraded to DSL I decided to keep my modem
line just in case there was a problem with my main phone. The number is
unlisted ,on the Do Not Call list and I never give it out to anyone so
when it rings it is a telemarketers or a wrong number.
Sometimes I pick it up and say ," You are selling but I am not
buying" which is usually met by silence ("damn, how did he know that").
Other times they ask for the head of the household and I say there is no
one here by that name.
By the way the "head of household" opening is a sure sign that they
are simply dialing sequential numbers. It reminds me of the worst
opening when calling a business, "hi, could I speak to the owner or
manager". It is akin to saying ," hi, I am a clueless telemarketer".
Rod Speed
> I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very few work options
Then they were stupid enough to get into that particular situation in the first place.
> and who were not lazy and/or st&pid.
Corse they were when they were stupid enough to not get qualified
for the jobs that are available when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
> And no, not everybody has the option of leaving their job.
Yes they all do.
> If you were a single parent with several children,
You should have got yourself qualified before you produced those brats.
> you wouldn't want your children to starve
No one starves in the US today.
> or to be kicked out of the apartment that was so difficult to
> acquire because you are a single parent with several children,
You should have got yourself qualified before
you produced those brats and ended up single.
> and so leaving a lousy job would not really be an option.
Corse it is if you have enough of a clue to
get qualified before spawning those brats.
> I mean, sure you could quit, but at the cost of your children suffering?
Anyone with a clue gets qualified before producing the brats
so they can change jobs if that ever becomes necessary.
> If you were a good parent, flat-out quitting would not be an option.
If you have a clue, you'd get qualified before having the brats and
you could then change jobs without being a problem for the brats.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Melinda Meahan <mme...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Melinda Meahan <mme...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>>>>> sarge137 wrote:
>>>>>> Oh please! It's 2008 - anyone without job skills is stupid and lazy, not worth my sympathy.
>>>>> I guess this is more the problem than the people telemarketing,
>>>>> because your statement is totally untrue. Not that SOME people
>>>>> without job skills might not be, but there are still lots of people
>>>>> around who are handicapped by how and/or where they were raised and aren't fortunate enough to be able to pay for
>>>>> job training, and public schools are doing worse and worse these days.
>>>> You dont have to pay for it, anyone with a clue can
>>>> find a decent job when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
>>> Not in my area.
>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>> Name the area and lets see if there is general agreement on your claim.
> San Francisco Bay Area, central Contra Costa County, and I speak of the experiences of four children and a number of
> acquaintances.
But you cant explain how those immigrants that you claim get the
jobs fine paid for the training that you claim is the only way to get
jobs there, and how they manage to get recruited before you
when they have a problem with basic english and you clearly dont.
Your claims are completely unbelievable.
There are clearly plenty of non immigrants getting jobs in your area.
John Weiss
>
>> difficult decision to leave what is perceived to be the "only" available job
>> because of improprieties or illegalities, but the option still exists. A
>> telemarketer who continues to work under those conditions is as responsible
>> as his employer.
>I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very few work
>options and who were not lazy and/or st&pid. And no, not everybody has the
>option of leaving their job. If you were a single parent with several
>children, you wouldn't want your children to starve or to be kicked out of the
>apartment that was so difficult to acquire because you are a single parent with
>several children, and so leaving a lousy job would not really be an option. I
>mean, sure you could quit, but at the cost of your children suffering? If you
>were a good parent, flat-out quitting would not be an option.
As you admit is the second-last sentence, the option does indeed exist,
difficult as it may be.
There are other options available, especially for children. While some social
service agencies may not act quickly in the case of desperate adults, they are
almost always quick to find relief for desperate children.
There is also the option of the worker reporting the improper/illegal activities
to the appropriate regulatory agency, and possibly getting a whistleblower's
compensation.
John Weiss
>
>> numbers is not responsible?
>
> Many, if not most, telemarketing companies have war dialers so you just pick
> up the phone to talk to the next person. At least, all the ones I have heard
> of do.
That doesn't answer the question. A worker could easily make the appropriate
determination by asking a manager/supervisor if their dialer screens the DNC
lists.
Since you claim that "Many, if not most" telemarketers use wardialers, it is
apparently common knowledge in the industry. That would make it clear to me
that the employee in the industry would share that common knowledge, and should
be responsible enough to ask the easy question. Failure to ask the question is
irresponsible in and of itself!
John Weiss
>
> The law requires the company to obtain the numbers of those on the list.
> The person making the calls can assume , until shown otherwise, that the
> company is complying.
I disagree. The employee has the responsibility to ensure that he is in
compliance with all laws, to the best of his ability. Since failure to screen
the DNC lists is a common violation, that would include a simple question of the
employer that he is in compliance with the DNC regulations.
George Grapman
Agreed. I already state than anyone getting a few people telling the
caller that they are on the do not call list has to be aware that are
breaking the law.
SpammersDie
"Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply" <mme...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in
message news:479127df$0$84243$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very few
>work options and who were not lazy and/or st&pid. And no, not everybody
>has the option of leaving their job. If you were a single parent with
>several children, you wouldn't want your children to starve or to be kicked
>out of the apartment that was so difficult to acquire because you are a
>single parent with several children, and so leaving a lousy job would not
>really be an option. I mean, sure you could quit, but at the cost of your
>children suffering? If you were a good parent, flat-out quitting would not
>be an option.
They they can quit carping about the entirely justifiable abuse they get.
There are far worse prices parents pay than this to keep their brood alive -
and at least some of those other parents bear the cost of children
themselves instead of engaging in the pre-meditated, for-profit theft of
time, peace and quiet from strangers that did nothing to them.
My hat goes off to those who make lives miserable for telemarketers. I
fantasize for the day this activity is declared a capital offense -
retroactively.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
> Melinda Meahan <mme...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>
>> I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very few work options
>
> Then they were stupid enough to get into that particular situation in the first place.
Well, if you are hateful and have no compassion for other people, there
is no point in trying to explain this to you.
> No one starves in the US today.
Oh, yes, they do.
> You should have got yourself qualified before
> you produced those brats and ended up single.
I was not speaking about myself. I am doing okay.
> Anyone with a clue gets qualified before producing the brats
> so they can change jobs if that ever becomes necessary.
Life happens. Good-paying jobs disappear. People don't always have the
money to sail through college right after high school and end up in
lesser jobs than they really want.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> They they can quit carping about the entirely justifiable abuse they get.
In my book, there is NEVER, EVER, a justification for abuse of any
person at all.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> But you cant explain how those immigrants that you claim get the
> jobs fine paid for the training that you claim is the only way to get
> jobs there, and how they manage to get recruited before you
> when they have a problem with basic english and you clearly dont.
I never said that these were skilled jobs. I said that they were
STARTER jobs -- fast food, etc.
Warren Block
> SpammersDie wrote:
>>
>> They they can quit carping about the entirely justifiable abuse they get.
>
> In my book, there is NEVER, EVER, a justification for abuse of any
> person at all.
Odd that you're defending telemarketers, then.
--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Melinda Meahan <mme...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>>> I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very few work options
>> Then they were stupid enough to get into that particular situation in the first place.
> Well, if you are hateful and have no compassion for other people, there is no point in trying to explain this to you.
If you're so stupid that you havent even noticed that its only
the stupid/lazy that ever get into that situation in the US today,
then yes, there is absolutely no point in discussing it with you.
>>> and who were not lazy and/or st&pid.
>> Corse they were when they were stupid enough to not get qualified
>> for the jobs that are available when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
>>> And no, not everybody has the option of leaving their job.
>> Yes they all do.
>>> If you were a single parent with several children,
>> You should have got yourself qualified before you produced those brats.
>>> you wouldn't want your children to starve
>> No one starves in the US today.
> Oh, yes, they do.
Oh no they dont when its kids.
>>> or to be kicked out of the apartment that was so difficult to
>>> acquire because you are a single parent with several children,
>> You should have got yourself qualified before
>> you produced those brats and ended up single.
> I was not speaking about myself. I am doing okay.
I wasnt talking about you personally either, I was talking about
those fools you claimed had no choice but to stay in a job that
involves flagrantly illegal activity and who you stupidly claimed
didnt get into that situation by being stupid or lazy.
>>> I mean, sure you could quit, but at the cost of your children suffering?
>> Anyone with a clue gets qualified before producing the brats
>> so they can change jobs if that ever becomes necessary.
> Life happens.
It does indeed, but even the stupidest cow should have managed to grasp
what produces kids by the time they are in the position to end up with them.
> Good-paying jobs disappear.
Not all good paying jobs disappear at once when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
> People don't always have the money to sail through college right after high school and end up in lesser jobs than they
> really want.
Lesser paying jobs that than they really want is an entirely different
matter to your stupid claim that some individuals who arent stupid
or lazy can end up in the situation where they have no choice but
to keep doing what is clearly flagrantly illegal work wise.
And anyone with a clue who doesnt get to sail through college right
after high school should be able to work out how to get qualified in
the areas that interest them after working for a while in a job which
might well be lesser jobs than they really want. Not a shred of rocket
science whatever required.
Rod Speed
> SpammersDie wrote
>> They they can quit carping about the entirely justifiable abuse they get.
> In my book, there is NEVER, EVER, a justification for abuse of any person at all.
More fool you. When a particular individual continues to do what even the
stupidest individual should be able to work out that the absolute vast bulk
of the general public detests, unwanted telemarketing calls, and chooses
not to check whether what they have been told to do is flagrantly illegal
activity after having been told repeatedly by an number of individuals that
they have called that the activity is flagrantly illegal, thats likely the only
way to get it thru their thick skulls short of getting the cops involved.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> But you cant explain how those immigrants that you claim get the
>> jobs fine paid for the training that you claim is the only way to get
>> jobs there, and how they manage to get recruited before you
>> when they have a problem with basic english and you clearly dont.
> I never said that these were skilled jobs.
You did however claim that some cant afford the job training to qualify for the jobs.
Thats just plain wrong with the sort of work you are talking about now.
> I said that they were STARTER jobs -- fast food, etc.
Just the sort of jobs where those with inadequate english start off behind the 8 ball.
If they can get the job anyway, there must be some very fundamental problem
with the attitudes of the non immigrants that find the immigrants get all those jobs.
William Souden
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>> But you cant explain how those immigrants that you claim get the
>> jobs fine paid for the training that you claim is the only way to get
>> jobs there, and how they manage to get recruited before you
>> when they have a problem with basic english and you clearly dont.
>
> I never said that these were skilled jobs. I said that they were
> STARTER jobs -- fast food, etc.
For Rod fast food was a starter and a finisher job. His adult work
career consists of one fast job which fired him before his lunch break.
Ever since then the welfare people have classified him as terminally
unemployable.
sarge137
<mmea...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Many, if not most, telemarketing companies have war dialers so you just
> pick up the phone to talk to the next person. At least, all the ones I
> have heard of do.
>
Illegal in almost every state in the union, and the few that don't
prohibit them likely soon will.
These con artists not only ignore local and national DNC registries,
but they also violate state and local laws prohibiting "the use of
automatic telephone dialing devices for the purpose of selling goods
or services."
First you want to blame the education system for their lack of skills
and ambition; then you rant about illegals taking jobs; now you want
to justify their complicity by claiming they're not actually dialing
the number, they're using illegal technology to make the connection.
What's next? Are you somehow going to connect the Bush administration
or the war in Iraq to this?
You're quite the apologist. You're obviously deeply involved with the
telemarketing industry and don't like people messing with your rice
bowl. The simple fact is that the ranks of telemarketers are full of
thieves and liars, who disregard the laws and regulations put in place
to control them. They're intrusive, abusive, and thoughtless. If the
government won't take care of them, the people whose privacy they
violate should.
Sarge
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> These con artists not only ignore local and national DNC registries,
> but they also violate state and local laws prohibiting "the use of
> automatic telephone dialing devices for the purpose of selling goods
> or services."
There are no regulations controlling what happens when you cross state
or national boundaries, are there? Up until at least 5 years ago, the
laws said what businesses inside the state could do inside the state,
not what businesses outside the state could do when calling other
states. And companies who use Skype and the like and call from other
countries aren't legally bound by those rules, are they?
> First you want to blame the education system for their lack of skills
> and ambition; then you rant about illegals taking jobs; now you want
> to justify their complicity by claiming they're not actually dialing
> the number, they're using illegal technology to make the connection.
> What's next? Are you somehow going to connect the Bush administration
> or the war in Iraq to this?
I am not justifying anything. If you thought this was an argument, then
I apologize and am bowing out. I was just discussing economic factors
that contribute to the problem except when it comes to people who feel
it is appropriate to abuse others. Even if someone else has abused you,
it's incredibly foolish to stoop to their level.
Rod Speed
> sarge137 wrote
>> These con artists not only ignore local and national DNC registries, but they also violate state and local laws
>> prohibiting "the use of automatic telephone dialing devices for the purpose of selling goods or services."
> There are no regulations controlling what happens when you cross state or national boundaries, are there?
Corse there are. Have a look at the regulations
controlling the sale of medicines some time.
> Up until at least 5 years ago, the laws said what businesses inside the state could do inside the state, not what
> businesses outside the state could do when calling other states.
Wrong again.
> And companies who use Skype and the like and call from other countries aren't legally bound by those rules, are they?
Corse they are. Try trading in illegal drugs that way and see how long you last.
>> First you want to blame the education system for their lack of skills and ambition; then you rant about illegals
>> taking jobs; now you want to justify their complicity by claiming they're not actually dialing the number, they're
>> using illegal technology to make the connection. What's next? Are you somehow going to connect the Bush
>> administration or the war in Iraq to this?
> I am not justifying anything.
Yes you did. Particularly with your claim about why those who
are employed to do what is flagrantly illegal cant just quit that
job when they realise that their employer is flouting the law.
> If you thought this was an argument, then I apologize and am bowing out.
That wont save your bacon.
> I was just discussing economic factors that contribute to the problem except when it comes to people who feel it is
> appropriate to abuse others. Even if someone else has abused you, it's incredibly foolish to stoop to their level.
Wrong again when its the only thing that might get it thru their
thick skulls that that they are doing is flagrantly illegal when
pointing that out politely doesnt get them to stop flouting the law.
If enough abuse them for flouting the law, they might get sick of the abuse and stop doing it.
Logan Shaw
> I will concede that if they are asking for your money, they should tell
> you who you are paying. But lots of people carrying the label
> "telemarketer" are only people opening a door, appointment setting,
> trying to collect names of people who are interested, etc., and those
> people might be working for a telemarketing service and not actually
> know who the end-user business is.
Well, then the people who own that business are incompetent, because
they have not trained their employees to be able to answer one of the
most obvious questions in a satisfactory answer. It would probably
be better for everyone if that business failed. I'm not a believer in
the idea that the free market *always* makes everything work out for
the best, but in a case like this where a business can't do the bare
minimum, I think it should lose out to other businesses which can.
- Logan
sfge...@paccbell.net
> sarge137 wrote:
>>
>> These con artists not only ignore local and national DNC registries,
>> but they also violate state and local laws prohibiting "the use of
>> automatic telephone dialing devices for the purpose of selling goods
>> or services."
>
> There are no regulations controlling what happens when you cross state
> or national boundaries, are there? Up until at least 5 years ago, the
> laws said what businesses inside the state could do inside the state,
> not what businesses outside the state could do when calling other
> states. And companies who use Skype and the like and call from other
> countries aren't legally bound by those rules, are they?
The federal Do Not Call law applies nationwide. There has already been
at least one conviction of a US company that outsourced calls to another
country. If the calls are made overseas by an overseas company on their
own the US is powerless.
Logan Shaw
>> Melinda Meahan <mme...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>>
>>> I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very
>>> few work options
>>
>> Then they were stupid enough to get into that particular situation in
>> the first place.
>
> Well, if you are hateful and have no compassion for other people, there
> is no point in trying to explain this to you.
There is a difference between compassion and indulgence. Where to draw
the line is often a judgment call, but I'd personally say that if someone
is knowingly and frequently doing something immoral (doesn't have to be
illegal) as part of their job, that's on the wrong side of the line. In
such a case, it doesn't do anyone any good for people to put up with it;
it just encourages people to do more stuff like that, which is bad for
the victims (in this case the people who are being called despite having
clearly said they don't want to be) *and* bad for the people who are doing
it since they are being sent the message that doing immoral stuff and/or
breaking the law is a viable option that they may be able to make work
for themselves.
>> No one starves in the US today.
>
> Oh, yes, they do.
I've heard both points of view on this one, but I've never seen any
evidence that anyone need starve. There is plenty of food, and if
you can't buy it yourself, there are lots of organizations that will
give it to you. I know that at least in the town where I live, if
you are desperate for food, all you need do is go to the city and
tell them, and they will give you what amounts to an emergency gift
card to use at a local grocery store to buy a few days worth of food
while they do the paperwork to figure out whether to give you more
money.
- Logan
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
> The federal Do Not Call law applies nationwide. There has already been
> at least one conviction of a US company that outsourced calls to another
> country. If the calls are made overseas by an overseas company on their
> own the US is powerless.
I understand that the Do Not Call list is nationwide, but as far as
using war dialers, that still happens even if it's illegal in some
states, and I know that my local telco has always claimed (in response
to people complaining) that if calls violating state rules (such as the
automated machines that start a recorded message when you answer that
phone that don't identify the company in the first 15 or 30 seconds or
whatever the time limit was and that don't automatically disconnect if
you hang up) are made from out-of-state, there is nothing they can do
about it.
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>>> No one starves in the US today.
>>
>> Oh, yes, they do.
>
> I've heard both points of view on this one, but I've never seen any
> evidence that anyone need starve. There is plenty of food, and if
> you can't buy it yourself, there are lots of organizations that will
> give it to you. I know that at least in the town where I live, if
> you are desperate for food, all you need do is go to the city and
> tell them, and they will give you what amounts to an emergency gift
> card to use at a local grocery store to buy a few days worth of food
> while they do the paperwork to figure out whether to give you more
> money.
Well, whether they do starve might be a different issue than whether
they need to. And from what I understand from a single person I have
talked to, there is no welfare safety net for adults who are not
certifiable as disabled (which can be difficult to document and which
certainlyi can also be time-consuming), which means there are cracks
that people can fall into and be not able to help themselves completely
and not eligible for help.
Rod Speed
> sfge...@paccbell.net wrote:
>>
>> The federal Do Not Call law applies nationwide. There has already
>> been at least one conviction of a US company that outsourced calls
>> to another country. If the calls are made overseas by an overseas
>> company on their own the US is powerless.
> I understand that the Do Not Call list is nationwide, but as far as
> using war dialers, that still happens even if it's illegal in some states,
So does pushing illegal drugs.
> and I know that my local telco has always claimed (in response
> to people complaining) that if calls violating state rules (such as
> the automated machines that start a recorded message when you answer that phone that don't identify the company in the
> first 15 or 30 seconds or whatever the time limit was and that don't automatically disconnect if you hang up) are made
> from out-of-state, there is nothing they can do about it.
They're wrong. They are just fobbing off the complainer. They may even believe it.
Rod Speed
>> Oh, yes, they do.
Particularly the children being discussed. Yes, its always possible
for a particular parent to lock the child in a room and literally starve
it to death, but that isnt what was being discussed.
> There is plenty of food, and if you can't buy it yourself, there are lots of organizations that will give it to you.
In spades with the children being discussed.
> I know that at least in the town where I live, if you are desperate for food, all you need do is go to the city and
> tell them, and they will give you what amounts to an emergency gift card to use at a local grocery store to buy a few
> days worth of food while they do the paperwork to figure out whether to give you more money.
In spades with the children being discussed.
Rod Speed
> Logan Shaw wrote:
>>>> No one starves in the US today.
>>>
>>> Oh, yes, they do.
>>
>> I've heard both points of view on this one, but I've never seen any
>> evidence that anyone need starve. There is plenty of food, and if
>> you can't buy it yourself, there are lots of organizations that will
>> give it to you. I know that at least in the town where I live, if
>> you are desperate for food, all you need do is go to the city and
>> tell them, and they will give you what amounts to an emergency gift
>> card to use at a local grocery store to buy a few days worth of food
>> while they do the paperwork to figure out whether to give you more money.
> Well, whether they do starve might be a different issue than whether they need to.
We were clearly discussing whether the kids of someone employed in
telemarketing need to starve if the individual chooses to quite that job.
> And from what I understand from a single person I have talked to, there is no welfare safety net for adults who are
> not certifiable as disabled
It was CHILDREN being discussed, not adults.
> (which can be difficult to document and which certainlyi can also be time-consuming), which means there are cracks
> that people can fall into and be not able to help themselves completely and not eligible for help.
Not with the CHILDREN being discussed.