Curious phone call
Paul Dormer
hidden nor an obvious spoof, I answered (although I think it's a number
that has called me several times in the past week and not left a message
when I haven't been able to answer).
"Mr Dormer?" asked a voice. I said yes, and the man's voice said
something in a thick Scottish accent that I couldn't follow. I asked him
to repeat it and he said, "Do you know Mr Hapgood who stays at no. 30?"
No. 30 is next door, but I don't really know the people there, rarely
seen them. (I knew "Stays at" in this context is Scottish for "lives
at".) I said no, and he hung up.
I wonder what that was about.
Paul Dormer
p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
>
> I wonder what that was about.
And I've just googled the number. Turns out it's a debt collection
agency known for phoning up random people and asking about neighbours:
Keith F. Lynch
> "Mr Dormer?" asked a voice. I said yes, and the man's voice said
> something in a thick Scottish accent that I couldn't follow. I
> asked him to repeat it and he said, "Do you know Mr Hapgood who
> stays at no. 30?" No. 30 is next door, but I don't really know the
> people there, rarely seen them. (I knew "Stays at" in this context
> is Scottish for "lives at".) I said no, and he hung up.
Debt collectors. I've gotten robo-calls that said something like,
"This is a private call for <some woman I never heard of>. If you are
not her, hang up at once. By remaining on the line, you're admitting
that you're her. It is urgent that you call <collection agency> at
<phone number> immediately."
I wonder if my answering machine will be sent to jail for not hanging
up when it was ordered to do so if it was not this woman.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Dorothy J Heydt
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Mr Dormer?" asked a voice. I said yes, and the man's voice said
>> something in a thick Scottish accent that I couldn't follow. I
>> asked him to repeat it and he said, "Do you know Mr Hapgood who
>> stays at no. 30?" No. 30 is next door, but I don't really know the
>> people there, rarely seen them. (I knew "Stays at" in this context
>> is Scottish for "lives at".) I said no, and he hung up.
>
>Debt collectors. I've gotten robo-calls that said something like,
>"This is a private call for <some woman I never heard of>. If you are
>not her, hang up at once. By remaining on the line, you're admitting
>that you're her. It is urgent that you call <collection agency> at
><phone number> immediately."
I used to get some of those, though without the threat. I finally
stayed on the line long enough to get the person's name and the
agency's phone number. I called them and said "You keep calling
my number for {name}, but this is not his number and hasn't been
for at least six years." They said "oh," or words to that
effect, and the calls eventually (not immediately) stopped. At
least nobody accused me of trying to shelter the deadbeat. May
have had something to do with his having a male, Hispanic name
and me being a female with an Anglo accent.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Paul Dormer
Lynch) wrote:
> I've gotten robo-calls
Robo-calls are a lot less common than silent calls, in the UK.
Gotten to the point now where, if the phone rings and I'm not standing
next to it, I'll let the answer machine take it. 999 times out of a
thousand, there is no message.
Marcus L. Rowland
Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> writes
Same here.
--
Marcus L. Rowland www.forgottenfutures.com
www.forgottenfutures.org
www.forgottenfutures.co.uk
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
Diana: Warrior Princess & Elvis: The Legendary Tours
The Original Flatland Role Playing Game
Kip Williams
> In message <memo.2009122...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>, Paul
> Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> writes
>> Gotten to the point now where, if the phone rings and I'm not standing
>> next to it, I'll let the answer machine take it. 999 times out of a
>> thousand, there is no message.
>
> Same here.
It depends on the number calling me. Sometimes I'm sure it's a robot.
Sometimes I know it's a personal call. Sometimes it's a number I don't
recognize that might be a potential client calling, and then it's a
tossup, but I usually err on the side of potential income. I can always
hang up on a robot.
Kip W
Keith F. Lynch
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> writes
>> Gotten to the point now where, if the phone rings and I'm not
>> standing next to it, I'll let the answer machine take it.
>> 999 times out of a thousand, there is no message.
> Same here.
In my case, they usually leave a message. The message is often,
"Hello? Hello? Mr. Lynch? Hello?" Apparently they never heard
of answering machines.
I took the bell out of the phone decades ago due to all the
telemarketer calls.
Martha Adams
wrote:
> Marcus L. Rowland <forgotte...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> writes
>>> Gotten to the point now where, if the phone rings and I'm not
>>> standing next to it, I'll let the answer machine take it.
>>> 999 times out of a thousand, there is no message.
>
>> Same here.
>
> In my case, they usually leave a message. The message is often,
> "Hello? Hello? Mr. Lynch? Hello?" Apparently they never heard
> of answering machines.
>
> I took the bell out of the phone decades ago due to all the
> telemarketer calls.
==========================================================
Many years ago I got a phone call -- at 2 am -- from a fellow who seemed
very
concerned about a detail of his anatomy. He called again around maybe 7 am
and again around maybe 10 am. I have no idea who he was. I didn't know
his
voice and I thought a lot about that. Anyhow, that afternoon I bought and
I
installed, an answering machine.
By degrees I weaned myself off answering the phone directly, as was my
lifetime
habit; and now I screen all calls. I estimate that over recent decades
some
30,000 of these cold calls have come in, the answering machine is necessary
today. I've lived long enough that I'm in the future now, and I don't
like it
here; and this is one of the core reasons why. (I decline for now to get
onto
the topic of what's going on in Washington.)
Another reason why the answering machine is good is the occasional overtly
obscene calls any woman gets. Those guys heads may be installed distinctly
slantwise, but not so much they'll leave their stuff in an answering
machine.
This is a *life quality* detail and that is in itself convincing for me.
I offer no help to strangers, and I don't keep my friends waiting. I used
a
children's toy voice changer to make my voice odd, and my total answering
machine response is, "After the beep, record a message." Thus the stranger
oddball calling in, isn't sure what he reached, and if he tries again, he
gets same response. I've noticed someone apparently trying up to three
times,
never saying anything. Well. I'd like this world to be a happier place,
but
that wish is not the reality. Anyone who doubts the wisdom today of an
answering machine wants to see the first half hour of "Scream," kind of a
very junky movie but if she had had an answering machine screener ...there
would have been no story there.
Anyhow, Titeotwawki -- mha [2009 Dec 24]
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Keith F. Lynch
> I used a children's toy voice changer to make my voice odd, and
> my total answering machine response is, "After the beep, record a
> message."
Same here, except that the robotic "leave a message" came with the
machine. It's the default if I don't record a greeting message
myself.
Your posting had alternating long and short lines, making it painful
to read.
Marty Helgesen
> Phone just rang, and as I was close to the phone, and the number was not
> hidden nor an obvious spoof, I answered (although I think it's a number
> that has called me several times in the past week and not left a message
> when I haven't been able to answer).
>
> "Mr Dormer?" asked a voice. I said yes, and the man's voice said
When I get a phone call and the caller asks if I am Mr. Helgesen or
Martin Helgesen I ask, "Who's calling?" If the caller indicates it's
a sales call or a call soliciting a contribution, as it almost always
is, I reply in a calm tone, "I never respond to telephone
solicitations. Goodbye." If it's a call from a charity I contribute
to I usually reword it to say that I support the organization, but
not in response to telephone solitications.
-----
Marty Helgesen
Mygmailuseridis mnhccatcunyvm
Support the Emergency Committee to Defend the Third Amendment!
Martha Adams
wrote:
> Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I used a children's toy voice changer to make my voice odd, and
>> my total answering machine response is, "After the beep, record a
>> message."
>
> Same here, except that the robotic "leave a message" came with the
> machine. It's the default if I don't record a greeting message
> myself.
>
> Your posting had alternating long and short lines, making it painful
> to read.
=======================================================
Re: alternating line lengths. When I look at my Opera version of
that message, I don't see the alternating line lengths. Is it
possible I've made my lines too long, and your browser is doing
that to them? Here, I've made my lines shorter. Does that make
a difference?
Dorothy J Heydt
Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
>When I get a phone call and the caller asks if I am Mr. Helgesen or
>Martin Helgesen I ask, "Who's calling?" If the caller indicates it's
>a sales call or a call soliciting a contribution, as it almost always
>is, I reply in a calm tone, "I never respond to telephone
>solicitations. Goodbye." If it's a call from a charity I contribute
>to I usually reword it to say that I support the organization, but
>not in response to telephone solitications.
I frequently pick up and get someone asking for my husband or
daughter. If I offer to take a message (if they're not in), and
the guy says "Oh, it's just a courtesy call, I'll call back" I
know they're trying to sell something. "Courtesy call" means
"some company one has had dealings with in the past, trying to
sell one something else."
David Goldfarb
Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Here, I've made my lines shorter. Does that make
>a difference?
Yes, it does.
--
David Goldfarb |"Oh, no! They've all become giant Swiss
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | lederhosen-clad dancing yodelers!"
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Animaniacs
Jay E. Morris
On 24-Dec-2009, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> I frequently pick up and get someone asking for my husband or
> daughter. If I offer to take a message (if they're not in), and
> the guy says "Oh, it's just a courtesy call, I'll call back" I
> know they're trying to sell something. "Courtesy call" means
> "some company one has had dealings with in the past, trying to
> sell one something else."
Man, I get these at work. Back when I was contractor I/company bought a
couple of on-line training courses. Now that I'm AF civil service I have
access to the entire library from one company. I've explained this to the
sales droids several times but I still get courtesy calls.
Along with software that we inquired about but never bought and never will.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 03:26:09 -0000, Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net>
>wrote:
>> Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> I used a children's toy voice changer to make my voice odd, and
>>> my total answering machine response is, "After the beep, record a
>>> message."
>>
>> Same here, except that the robotic "leave a message" came with the
>> machine. It's the default if I don't record a greeting message
>> myself.
>>
>> Your posting had alternating long and short lines, making it painful
>> to read.
>
>=======================================================
>
>Re: alternating line lengths. When I look at my Opera version of
>that message, I don't see the alternating line lengths. Is it
>possible I've made my lines too long, and your browser is doing
>that to them?
Doubtful. It did the same thing in my browser and I use a different OS
and different program than Keith to read Usenet.
>Here, I've made my lines shorter. Does that make
>a difference?
--
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail
fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
- John Paul Jones
Keith F. Lynch
> Re: alternating line lengths. When I look at my Opera version of
> that message, I don't see the alternating line lengths. Is it
> possible I've made my lines too long, and your browser is doing
> that to them?
No. My browser shows me exactly what's present, no more, no less.
(This has gotten me criticism when what's actually present was
intended to be interpreted in a special way, e.g. UTF-8.)
> Here, I've made my lines shorter. Does that make a difference?
Yes. Thanks.
David Harmon
F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>No. My browser shows me exactly what's present, no more, no less.
01001101 01111001 00100000 01100010 01110010 01101111 01110111 01110011
01100101 01110010 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101111 01110111 01110011
00100000 01101101 01100101 00100000 01100101 01111000 01100001 01100011
01110100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100001 01110100
00100111 01110011 00100000 01110000 01110010 01100101 01110011 01100101
01101110 01110100 00101100 00100000 01101110 01101111 00100000 01101101
01101111 01110010 01100101 00101100 00100000 01101110 01101111 00100000
01101100 01100101 01110011 01110011 00101110 00001101 00001010
Ben Yalow
>Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Re: alternating line lengths. When I look at my Opera version of
>> that message, I don't see the alternating line lengths. Is it
>> possible I've made my lines too long, and your browser is doing
>> that to them?
>No. My browser shows me exactly what's present, no more, no less.
>(This has gotten me criticism when what's actually present was
>intended to be interpreted in a special way, e.g. UTF-8.)
Actually, it only does so after some system-specific transformations have
already been done.
For example, by definition, on the wire the line breaks are of the form
<cr><lf> (0x0D 0x0A). Unix delimits lines with a bare <lf>. So what the
user sent to the Panix machine had lines that ended in <cr><lf> -- but
that's not what you see.
>> Here, I've made my lines shorter. Does that make a difference?
>Yes. Thanks.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Seth
Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> If it's a call from a charity I contribute
>to I usually reword it to say that I support the organization, but
>not in response to telephone solitications.
Which is a good thing, because often the solicitors are a separate
organization which charges up to 90% of the amount raised.
Seth
William December Starr
David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> said:
"It was just a dream, Bender. There's no such thing as two."
-- wds
Keith F. Lynch
> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> If it's a call from a charity I contribute to I usually reword it
>> to say that I support the organization, but not in response to
>> telephone solitications.
> Which is a good thing, because often the solicitors are a separate
> organization which charges up to 90% of the amount raised.
I'm surprised that any charity would allow that. I'd think that for
every additional dollar it raises, it would drive away hundreds of
long-term donors.
I've been called cynical, but I keep discovering I'm not cynical
enough. I used to donate to United Way, but not since I learned that
the people who work there not only aren't unpaid volunteers, but are
often paid far more than most donors. Their salaries of course come
entirely from donations.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Michael Benveniste
>> Which is a good thing, because often the solicitors are a separate
>> organization which charges up to 90% of the amount raised.
>
> I'm surprised that any charity would allow that. I'd think that for
> every additional dollar it raises, it would drive away hundreds of
> long-term donors.
Personally, I'm surprised by how few people research the charities that
they donate to. But since they don't, fundraising scams still thrive.
> I used to donate to United Way, but not since I learned that the people
> who work there not only aren't unpaid volunteers, but are often paid far
> more than most donors. Their salaries of course come entirely from
> donations.
For sufficiently vague values of "often," I suppose that's true. The
executives at United Way get paid competitively or a bit less than executives
at similarly sized for-profit companies, but at the top levels that's still
a handsome wage. But why would you expect anything else? A business the size
of the United Way requires full-time professional management, and there simply
aren't enough independently wealthy people willing to do the job for free. So
charities have to compete for management talent the same as anyone else.
The "boiler room" staff may be volunteers or be paid employees. The latter is
an awful job -- pay is low and turnover extremely high.
I don't donate to United Way because I don't think they add sufficient value
to justify the costs of the extra layers of bureaucracy. But I do donate to
charities knowing full well that they have paid staff, and use sites like
Guidestar and CharityNavigator to determine how much of my money goes to the
actual cause rather than fundraising and "educational" expenses.
Keith F. Lynch
> Personally, I'm surprised by how few people research the charities
> that they donate to. But since they don't, fundraising scams still
> thrive.
Why aren't these scams prosecuted? If I went door to door collecting
for, say, UNICEF, and pocketed 90% of the donations -- or even 10% --
I'd expect to go to jail if this were discovered.
> But why would you expect anything else? A business the size of the
> United Way requires full-time professional management, and there
> simply aren't enough independently wealthy people willing to do the
> job for free.
How many high-level executives do they need? How many retired people
with relevant experience are willing to do it for free from home? And
does it really have to be a full-time job? Why not three times as
many people each working a third of the time?
Worldcons with thousands of members are run entirely by unpaid
volunteers.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Michael Benveniste <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
>> Personally, I'm surprised by how few people research the charities
>> that they donate to. But since they don't, fundraising scams still
>> thrive.
>
>Why aren't these scams prosecuted? If I went door to door collecting
>for, say, UNICEF, and pocketed 90% of the donations -- or even 10% --
>I'd expect to go to jail if this were discovered.
>
>> But why would you expect anything else? A business the size of the
>> United Way requires full-time professional management, and there
>> simply aren't enough independently wealthy people willing to do the
>> job for free.
>
>How many high-level executives do they need? How many retired people
>with relevant experience are willing to do it for free from home? And
>does it really have to be a full-time job? Why not three times as
>many people each working a third of the time?
>
>Worldcons with thousands of members are run entirely by unpaid
>volunteers.
Do you truly think that a Worldcon is on the same scale as the United
Way?
--
"It's raining soup and we haven't built any soup bowls."
Dr. Jerry Pournelle
Michael Benveniste
> Why aren't these scams prosecuted? If I went door to door collecting
> for, say, UNICEF, and pocketed 90% of the donations -- or even 10% --
> I'd expect to go to jail if this were discovered.
Short answer? The law sets no limits on the amount nor the percentage
of contributions can spend on fundraising efforts. They do require
the charity to report such expenditures on their form 990, and if they
can be prosecuted for misrepresentation and various other illegal
activity.
In fact, the FTC announced "Operation False Charity" earlier this
year to prosecute just such schemes:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/05/charityfraud.shtm
>> But why would you expect anything else? A business the size of the
>> United Way requires full-time professional management, and there simply
>> aren't enough independently wealthy people willing to do the job for
>> free.
>
> How many high-level executives do they need?
Figure as many as any other company with ~1300 local branches and a
budget of over $4 billion.
> How many retired people with relevant experience are willing to do it
> for free from home?
And are competent to do so? As a first order approximation, zero. Being
a CEO of a large company, non-profit or not, is hard work. Rich retired
people are much more likely to be major contributors, board members, or
create their own charitable foundations and pay a CEO to run them.
> And does it really have to be a full-time job? Why not three times as many
> people each working a third of the time?
Yes, it has to be a full time job, for the same reason you don't have part
time executives at large for-profit companies. If you still don't understand
why, I suggest picking up a book on organizational behavior.
> Worldcons with thousands of members are run entirely by unpaid
> volunteers.
Worldcon's are run with fewer committee members and staff than the United Way
has branches. They are a five- or six-day, once a year event, as opposed to
a 365 day a year ongoing operation. The budget of a WorldCon wouldn't cover
three hours of the United Way's operations.
While the executives of a Worldcon aren't paid, Worldcon's do have to pay
for various services and functions. That does include fundraising costs
in the form of advertising and marketing expenses.
Of course, I'm not an expert in running a WorldCon or in meeting planning.
But let's just say I do have a fair amount of access to such an expert...
Paul Dormer
mh...@verizon.net (Martha Adams) wrote:
>
> Another reason why the answering machine is good is the occasional
> overtly obscene calls any woman gets. Those guys heads may be
> installed distinctly slantwise, but not so much they'll leave their
> stuff in an answering machine.
And presumably withhold their number.
A I remember a fan saying their parents thought it was polite always to
withhold ones number when phoning friends, and then wondered why their
daughter never answered the phone when they rang.
Paul Dormer
(Kip Williams) wrote:
But for me to recognise the number, I'd have to be standing right next to
the phone (and wearing my glasses). I don't tend to carry the handset
with me.
Furthermore, if I'm watching television or listening to music (my normal
state when downstairs) the volume doesn't have to be particularly loud
for me not to hear the phone through the closed door to the hallway,
where the main phone is.
Dorothy J Heydt
Curiously enough, I hardly ever get calls of the kind we've been
discussing. Maybe once a month I get someone trying to sell something.
Maybe every six months I get silence on the line for long enough
for me to say, "Hello? Hello? Goodbye."
Which is just as well. I have a handset right by my bed and I'm
usually the one who picks up the call. There is an answering
machine or a voicemail arrangement or something attached to the
wireless handset upstairs, but it's upstairs ... and I don't
know how to use it anyway.
About half the time the phone rings it's for Hal or me, some
doctor's staffperson confirming an appointment for the next day
or so. The other half of the time it's for my son-in-law, either
somebody from the college he's taking online courses from, or his
mother. (In the latter case I try to warn him.)
Clearly I'm an outlier here.
Dorothy J Heydt
Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>mh...@verizon.net (Martha Adams) wrote:
>
>>
>> Another reason why the answering machine is good is the occasional
>> overtly obscene calls any woman gets. Those guys heads may be
>> installed distinctly slantwise, but not so much they'll leave their
>> stuff in an answering machine.
>
>And presumably withhold their number.
>
>A I remember a fan saying their parents thought it was polite always to
>withhold ones number when phoning friends,
Whyever? Did they think leaving their phone number was too
distancing, treating their friends like mere acquaintances?
>and then wondered why their
>daughter never answered the phone when they rang.
Did the parents never get an obscene phone call?
That's *another* kind of call I haven't received in ... gosh,
forty years or so. If I did, I'd simply hand it over to Hal; but
do the obscene callers know I have a husband around to turn them
over to? Do they scope out potential victims before calling
them, the way burglars do before burgling? I refuse to believe
they have sufficient ESP to figure out from a phone number the
gender and number of the people behind it.
Seth
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>>> If it's a call from a charity I contribute to I usually reword it
>>> to say that I support the organization, but not in response to
>>> telephone solitications.
>
>> Which is a good thing, because often the solicitors are a separate
>> organization which charges up to 90% of the amount raised.
>
>I'm surprised that any charity would allow that. I'd think that for
>every additional dollar it raises, it would drive away hundreds of
>long-term donors.
Why? Once somebody gives, they're usually solicited directly by the
charity; it's only after they don't give for long enough that the
charity gives up that their info is turned over to the outside
solicitors.
Besides, most people don't know even to ask who the person calling
works for, and how much of any contribution (or pledge) the charity
itself will get.
Seth
Paul Dormer
Heydt) wrote:
>
> >A I remember a fan saying their parents thought it was polite always
to
> >withhold ones number when phoning friends,
>
> Whyever? Did they think leaving their phone number was too
> distancing, treating their friends like mere acquaintances?
Who knows? It seems to be the lot of each generation to wonder about the
strange foibles of ones parents.
Kip Williams
> Did the parents never get an obscene phone call?
>
> That's *another* kind of call I haven't received in ... gosh,
> forty years or so. If I did, I'd simply hand it over to Hal; but
> do the obscene callers know I have a husband around to turn them
> over to? Do they scope out potential victims before calling
> them, the way burglars do before burgling? I refuse to believe
> they have sufficient ESP to figure out from a phone number the
> gender and number of the people behind it.
The little old lady answers her phone in the middle of the night. "Hello?"
A creepy voice at the other end says, "I'll bet you'd just love for me
to come over there and throw you down on your bed and--" The voice goes
on at some length.
When the caller finally pauses, the little old lady says, "You can tell
all that just from 'hello'?"
Kip W
Keith F. Lynch
> Besides, most people don't know even to ask who the person calling
> works for, and how much of any contribution (or pledge) the charity
> itself will get.
Probably because most people assume the charity will get all of it,
and that the person on the phone is an unpaid volunteer.
ObFandom: A few years ago WSFA volunteered to man the phones during
a local PBS stations's pledge week.
Keith F. Lynch
> ... do the obscene callers know I have a husband around to turn them
> over to? Do they scope out potential victims before calling them,
> the way burglars do before burgling? I refuse to believe they have
> sufficient ESP to figure out from a phone number the gender and
> number of the people behind it.
Maybe they use the phone book and look for female names?
Many women who live alone (or only with their children) use their
initials for their phone book listing. If few men use their initials
for their phone book listing, then initials also imply a woman without
a man.
Kevrob
> Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Besides, most people don't know even to ask who the person calling
> > works for, and how much of any contribution (or pledge) the charity
> > itself will get.
>
> Probably because most people assume the charity will get all of it,
> and that the person on the phone is an unpaid volunteer.
>
> ObFandom: A few years ago WSFA volunteered to man the phones during
> a local PBS stations's pledge week.
> --
>
The local UW in your area may be well run, but the national outfit was
in bad shape late in the last century:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Aramony
I refused to donate to United Way starting in the late 1970s, on the
grounds that some of their "charitable activity" was lobbying the
government to increase funding of programs their member agencies were
involved in. Ask me to donate money to convince pols to raise my
taxes? No damn thanks!
Charity is Charity. Tax-funded "programs" are officially approved
larceny. You'd think they'd know the difference.
One of the temp jobs I took this year was as a "Volunteer Coordinator"
for the local Muscular Dystrophy Association. I was told that I would
be given prospect lists, and was to make calls to folks who could be
persuaded to participate in an annual fundraiser - the old "bail your
buddy out of _jail_" schtick. In truth, the lists were pages
photocopied from business directories, and the job consisted of trying
to get past message machines and receptionists in order to talk to
actual people. In almost no cases were the listed contacts amenable to
the proposition, and the whole procedure was akin to battering my head
against a stone wall for 8 hours. I didn't last 2 weeks, and was
never gladder to be done with my job in my life.
Since what I was doing was charitable fundraising, rather than sales,
it was exempt from the legislation limiting telemarketers (No Call
List, etc.) Still, it was fundamentally slimy, as the "cute" script
they gave us to read wasn't very straightforward about the purpose of
the call.
Kevin
Keith F. Lynch
> Since what I was doing was charitable fundraising, rather than
> sales, it was exempt from the legislation limiting telemarketers
> (No Call List, etc.)
I've never understood why such a list would be necessary. Given that
most people strongly dislike "cold" sales calls, charitable calls,
etc., I'd think that any company or charity that makes such calls
would only be harming itself, losing more than a dozen current
or potential customers or donors for every new one it produces.
*Especially* if there's any evasion about the purpose of the call.
And given that such a list *does* exist, I think that anyone who
cold-calls numbers on it anyway, knowing for a fact that such calls
are unwanted, is just shooting themselves in the foot, even if there
is some loophole that means they can't actually go to jail for it.
So I'm not surprised that your employer had little success.