Caller-ID WORTHLESS
Carl P.
Ken M. wrote:
Snip previous post..........
> If your callers are blocking their numbers, just activate your *77
> feature, and the "anonymous callers" cannot call you.
>
> If telemarketers frequently call you, buy the "Easy Hang Up" device.
> When you hear the person starting with their sales pitch, just push the
> button on the unit, and they are history. They will hear a message
> telling them NOT to call you again.
>
> The unit, which I've used for about two years, is available at:
>
> http://www.easyhangup.com
>
> I use this device all the time. It works!
>
> (ken)
>
My phone came equipped with a very easy hang-up device that works
great. It's called the "Talk" button. I push it and a dail tone sounds
to let the telemarketer know not to call me again. :)
BTW, I agree with everything you said about Caller ID. It has been
available in our area for about three months and I never get called in
to work on my off time anymore.
Carl
decophile
std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell) wrote:
>I can't understand why anyone would cough up cash for such a
>device when saying "F___ yourself." Is free and takes even
>less time than pushing a button on a box...
>
>
Not a good idea. This could lead to your name "never" being removed
from the list, hang ups at all hours of the day/night or even being
passed on to other list for retaliatory reasons. Besides, the person
making the call is only doing a job. Granted, abusive people comes
with the job, but they`re not the ones to abuse.
A good way to get off a list is to claim no one lives there by that
name and say it in a babbling way that indicates that you`re retarded
to the point of severe brain damage. Crank the volume of the T.V. or
radio up to give an add sense of total anarchy in the house.
Telemarketers won`t waste their time trying to explain something to
someone with an I.Q. of 5. Even if it doesn`t work, you`ll have a
great time on their dime. You may want to rehearse something first.
Close to all of the calls I used to get were from companies trying to
sell me insurance to cover my credit card payments in the case I`m
laid off etc.. They of course, got my name and number from the
financial institutions whose credit cards I carry. A call to them with
a threat of canceling the card the next time someone calls
representing them will usually work, especially if you`re carrying a
balance and you state you`ll transfer the balance to another card
immediately following the next call.
Also, NEVER give out info (address/phone numbers) about yourself to
any business. Any business that claims they have to have it is full of
shit. If they insist, walk out. In the event you have to, like video
rentals and the like, always make it clear TO THE MANAGER in a
serious, almost deranged tone of voice, that you`ll have his head on a
stick if you find out he sells your name to a list and look these
people in the eyes when you say it. Most of these places will sell
names to a list regardless of their claims that they don`t. NEVER fill
out sweepstakes or entry blanks of any kind.
A new phenomena growing with supermarkets is V.I.P. cards that offer
you savings if you sign up. When they push these cards on you, tell
them to just give everyone the same price break and they`ll be no need
for their stupid, frigging card. This info they collect WILL be sold
to list.
Protect yourself from getting on a list in the first place.
Decophile
(Remove the "22" to respond)
http://www.pipeline.com/~decophile
(Updated 11/5/97)
marc_k
decophile (decop...@pipeline.com) wrote:
yep, they DO!
: NEVER fill out sweepstakes or entry blanks of any kind.
: A new phenomena growing with supermarkets is V.I.P. cards that offer
: you savings if you sign up. When they push these cards on you, tell
: them to just give everyone the same price break and they`ll be no need
: for their stupid, frigging card. This info they collect WILL be sold
: to list.
Very easy to solve-most of those supermarket "savings cards" require no id
to get(unless you want check-cashing priviledges on it).
So when they give you the form, give all false data....you get the
savings, and they can't bother you.
They can still use your card for marketing studies, but as long as they
don't really know who you are, then who cares!
One of my local stores has those cards, and I got fed up with bugging the
clerk to key the bypass code(done by swiping a card that the checkout
clerk has) to get the discounts-true, there are other stores without
cards, but I sometimes found myself near the store with the cards.
So I did the above-end of hassle!
: Protect yourself from getting on a list in the first place.
Gary Dyrkacz
>70473...@compuserve.com wrote:
>>
>> Pacific Bell offered me a free caller ID box if I subscribed to caller ID
>> for at least a month. Well, the month is over, and I've cancelled.
>> Reason for this is almost every call that I receive were from a phone
>> with caller ID blocking. I figured, what a waste. For $5.00 a month, I
>> think I only had three calls from unblocked numbers. An absolute
>> worthless service. .
We ran into a curious problem with caller ID. My wife is a grade
school teacher. Naturally for various reasons she often needs to
contact parents at home. Usually this is in the evening from our home
phone. When she taught in a fairly affluent school district, she would
leave a message on the parents machine to call her at school. Now she
works in a less affluent district, and when she started we began to
get a lot of calls at home even though she did not offer our home
phone number. It turns out many of the people in the less affluant
district seem to have caller ID. Now she has to block it when she
calls them. The only thing we could figure out is that maybe they are
trying to screen out calls from bill collectors or former spouses.
-
Gary Dyrkacz
dyr...@mcs.net
Learn about Radio Control Aircraft
http://www.mcs.net/~dyrgcmn/
-
linda-renee
Gary Dyrkacz wrote:
> It turns out many of the people in the less affluant
> district seem to have caller ID. Now she has to block it when she
> calls them. The only thing we could figure out is that maybe they are
> trying to screen out calls from bill collectors or former spouses.
Why do you say this??? Could these "less affluent" people maybe, just
maybe, want Caller ID for the *same* reasons everyone else wants it?
--
Linda
"I can't believe that we are going to let a majority of the people
decide what's best for this state." LA State Rep J. Travis
Jeff Jonas
>> >I can't understand why anyone would cough up cash for such a
>> >device when saying "F___ yourself." Is free and takes even
>> >less time than pushing a button on a box...
The telemarketing FAQ notes it's best to say
"put me on your do not call list",
"I don't take calls from solocitors", etc.
I usually "refuse the offer" and hang up.
>> Not a good idea. This could lead to your name "never" being removed
>> from the list ...
I'd agree with NOT being nasty since it's just a waste of YOUR time and emotion.
There's no need to generate additional negative energy.
>Oh, well, if you don't want to spend the money and really want to get
>rid of them fast, I just say, "You reached the homicide division" and
>they can't hang up quick enough!
*grin* A policeman friend who was physically large and intimidating looking
took great delight at playing off his image and deep voice whenever possible.
You'd never know how he'd answer the phone even for friends
("city morgue", "plague house" when they were alls sick with flu/colds, ...)
Deep down he was a real pussycat and a very affectionate and caring.
I have caller-id and it's mostly useless since telemarketers use phone
services that always appear as "out of area".
--
Jeffrey Jonas
jeffj@panix(dot)com
Meow? PRR PRR PRR !
RogerT
Doobie wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:34:06 GMT, decop...@pipeline.com (decophile)
> wrote:
>
> >std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell)std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I can't understand why anyone would cough up cash for such a
> >>device when saying "F___ yourself." Is free and takes even
> >>less time than pushing a button on a box...
> >
> >passed on to other list for retaliatory reasons. Besides, the person
> >making the call is only doing a job. Granted, abusive people comes
> >with the job, but they`re not the ones to abuse.
>
> and such people certainly deserve a little retaliation. But still,
> there's no excuse for anyone to be a telemarketer.
>
Most people do telemarketing because they can't get anything
else. But the problem remains because there are still enough
people out there that accept the offers to make it worth
the telemarketers continuing. Probably the truest statement
I know of is that if you are solicited in your home for a
product you had not thought of buying, the person calling is
the least likely to offer the best product or service that
you could find. This is particularly true for charities.
If it's not an outright scam, you can give any charity a
greater gift by sending to them directly instead of through
a telemarketer that takes a big chuck of the gift.
Ferrel Atkins
I too am bothered by telemarketing -- BUT since I'm retired and
have some extra time, sometimes I engage them on conversation and
sometimes get them so confused they forget the purpose of the call.
I can start out
Where are you calling from?? And I can always draw them out on that.
What's the weather like in Vagina, Virginia??? And that can go on and on.
I once had so much fun with a caller re house siding that she
finally said, "Well, I'll call tomorrow when you're sober" and hung up.
She called the next day and my wife gave her the same
answer I gave; that we have redwood siding which lasts FOREVER.
Try it sometime. If they start asking you questions, you can
come back and say, "Incidentally, glad you called -- I'm also doing
a phone questionnaire". You can make the calls increasingly personal
until they finally hang up on you.
D. Ferrel Atkins
Steven M. Scharf
Gary Dyrkacz wrote in message <34d36f1a...@news.mcs.com>...
>It turns out many of the people in the less affluant
>district seem to have caller ID.
You are right. This is the thrust of the marketing by the phone companies
these days (well at least in California). They've given up on selling
Caller-ID
to the middle and upper class and now target the people that can least
afford it. Ditto for premium cable, etc.
boner of the month
decophile wrote:
> A new phenomena growing with supermarkets is V.I.P. cards that offer
> you savings if you sign up. When they push these cards on you, tell
> them to just give everyone the same price break and they`ll be no need
> for their stupid, frigging card. This info they collect WILL be sold
> to list.
> *----
So you don't want the store to cut expenses by improving their stock and
marketing byevaluating customer purchases, and you don't want them to make
money selling the information.
But you want them to discount their prices more.
You have a very optimistic economic outlook.
Doobie
>std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell)std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell) wrote:
>
>
>>I can't understand why anyone would cough up cash for such a
>>device when saying "F___ yourself." Is free and takes even
>>less time than pushing a button on a box...
>
>Not a good idea. This could lead to your name "never" being removed
>from the list, hang ups at all hours of the day/night or even being
>passed on to other list for retaliatory reasons. Besides, the person
>making the call is only doing a job. Granted, abusive people comes
>with the job, but they`re not the ones to abuse.
Some people just want the world to know that they're @$$holes
and such people certainly deserve a little retaliation. But still,
there's no excuse for anyone to be a telemarketer.
>Also, NEVER give out info (address/phone numbers) about yourself to
>any business.
Never buy anything from an unsolicited salesman to begin with.
Doobie
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:45:14 GMT, dyr...@mcs.com (Gary Dyrkacz)
wrote:
>
>
>We ran into a curious problem with caller ID. My wife is a grade
>school teacher. Naturally for various reasons she often needs to
>contact parents at home. Usually this is in the evening from our home
>phone. When she taught in a fairly affluent school district, she would
>leave a message on the parents machine to call her at school. Now she
>works in a less affluent district, and when she started we began to
>get a lot of calls at home even though she did not offer our home
>phone number. It turns out many of the people in the less affluant
>district seem to have caller ID. Now she has to block it when she
>calls them. The only thing we could figure out is that maybe they are
>trying to screen out calls from bill collectors or former spouses.
I had a job where I needed to make the occasional phone call for
a business. I liked to use my office where because it was quite and
comfertable. No one needed to call back, but if they did, they
should use the published number of the business. But, occasinally I
would get a call from someone who used caller ID. This is a bother
because I have important work (even if it's just relaxing) and I don't
want to be desturbed. So, I stopped using my office phone to call
these people, heck, I just stopped doing people the favor of calling.
So, I have come to conclude that it is RUDE to call someone based
on a number from caller-ID. The caller isn't choosing to give a
phone number to call. If someone wants to get messages, get an
answering or stay home.
Deborah Stevenson
In <34d3d542...@news.dialnet.net> doobie**remove**@mailexcite.com (Doobie)
writes:
>I had a job where I needed to make the occasional phone call for
>a business. I liked to use my office where because it was quite and
>comfertable. No one needed to call back, but if they did, they
>should use the published number of the business. But, occasinally I
>would get a call from someone who used caller ID.
>This is a bother
>because I have important work (even if it's just relaxing) and I don't
>want to be desturbed. So, I stopped using my office phone to call
>these people, heck, I just stopped doing people the favor of calling.
>So, I have come to conclude that it is RUDE to call someone based
>on a number from caller-ID. The caller isn't choosing to give a
>phone number to call. If someone wants to get messages, get an
>answering or stay home.
Hmm, interesting etiquette question. Am I correctly understanding the
situation in that these people had no answering machine so you were unable
to leave a preferable number? And you were calling a number they'd
provided at their request?
I may go with you on this one, though I have some sympathy for people who
only have one number to get ahold of you with. If you're not calling at
their request, that's a different matter, because their intrusion is no
worse than yours, but it does seem that technology has set things up for
barging in over manners on this one. People call from the houses of
friends and all manner of other places; that doesn't mean that's where
they're to be reached at.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Deborah Stevenson
> Try it sometime. If they start asking you questions, you can
>come back and say, "Incidentally, glad you called -- I'm also doing
>a phone questionnaire". You can make the calls increasingly personal
>until they finally hang up on you.
Hmm. And I'm not sure they can complain about an obscene phone call if
they're the callers :-).
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
ZÉRö
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:11:12 GMT, unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
>But it doesn't stop with the cost of the device - hell I wouldn't need one
>it is part of my phone already! the rip off is the monthly charge the
>telco gets for the service - I doubt if it is worth the $90 a year it costs
>when you can use your answering machine to screen your calls or just hang
>up on the sucker.
>
>>
>>Don't you just love those telemarketers who say, "But I'm not selling
>>anything......."
>
>
>I never hear that part of their conversation they are talking to dead air
>by that time - why do/did you bother getting involved in a conversation
>with them in the first place?? Anyone who starts a dialog with one of them
>is as bad or even worse than they are when it comes to smarts!
I consider that price to be fair when it keeps the Navy from calling
me on my off time and forcing me to come in to get yelled at for
something I probably didn't do.
ZÉRö
Remove "no." and ".spam" from email to reply.
Don't read below this line.
Information for all!
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana, cocaine,
cia,plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate, Cuba, Missle, Patriot, bomb, fertilizer, and blasting cap
The spam harvesters will have a ball with this puppy:
root@localhost
admin@localhost
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
ZÉRö
>Some people just want the world to know that they're @$$holes
>and such people certainly deserve a little retaliation. But still,
>there's no excuse for anyone to be a telemarketer.
Yeah there is, it's called $7 an hour.
David M. Spera
unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 03:00:02 -0500, "Ken M." <pobo...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hey, whatever works best for you! The device is so easy to use, just
> >push the button, and it's a good investment for me ($19.95) and I don't
> >have to argue anymore.
>
> But it doesn't stop with the cost of the device - hell I wouldn't need one
> it is part of my phone already! the rip off is the monthly charge the
> telco gets for the service - I doubt if it is worth the $90 a year it costs
True. In fact Bell Atlantic many times will give you a FREE Caller ID
box when you subscribe to the service (something like $5 a month).
--
Dave
Doobie
On 1 Feb 1998 01:22:32 GMT, stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Deborah
Stevenson) wrote:
>In <34d3d542...@news.dialnet.net> doobie**remove**@mailexcite.com (Doobie)
>writes:
>
>>I had a job where I needed to make the occasional phone call for
>>a business. I liked to use my office where because it was quite and
>>comfertable. No one needed to call back, but if they did, they
>>should use the published number of the business. But, occasinally I
>>would get a call from someone who used caller ID.
>
>>This is a bother
>>because I have important work (even if it's just relaxing) and I don't
>>want to be desturbed. So, I stopped using my office phone to call
>>these people, heck, I just stopped doing people the favor of calling.
>Hmm, interesting etiquette question. Am I correctly understanding the
>situation in that these people had no answering machine so you were unable
>to leave a preferable number? And you were calling a number they'd
>provided at their request?
I used the number they provided. And, personally, I don't understand
why people call numbers on their caller ID. I'm certainly not
interested in calling all the numbers that show up on my caller ID.
>I may go with you on this one, though I have some sympathy for people who
>only have one number to get ahold of you with. If you're not calling at
>their request, that's a different matter, because their intrusion is no
>worse than yours, but it does seem that technology has set things up for
>barging in over manners on this one. People call from the houses of
>friends and all manner of other places; that doesn't mean that's where
>they're to be reached at.
I was calling at their request... Now, when people asked to be called
and informed, I refuse. They can wait for the mail notification
(which is done by someone other than myself).
Doobie
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 20:23:59 -0500, RogerT <noad...@aohell.com>
wrote:
>Most people do telemarketing because they can't get anything
>else.
It's probably true that telemarketing is a very easy job to get,
and a job that requires no skills (at least to get hired, but I'm
sure performance quickly becomes a company concern).
Still, there seems to be plenty of more respectable low-end
jobs available.
>But the problem remains because there are still enough
>people out there that accept the offers to make it worth
>the telemarketers continuing.
Right. As a rule, I always refuse to buy anything from
a telemarketer no matter how good the offer sounds.
> Probably the truest statement
>I know of is that if you are solicited in your home for a
>product you had not thought of buying, the person calling is
>the least likely to offer the best product or service that
>you could find.
True again.
decophile
Umm............Yes!!.....Yes, that`s what I want!! And the sooner, the
better....dammit!!
(Sheesh!)
Gene
BibleKitty
I use my caller-id to screen calls. If it is someone I know I pick up so I
don't waste their time with the answering machine. Unavailable or out of area
calls are usually someone I don't know (most of my long distance numbers show
up now) so I let the machine get it. If it is someone I know I then pick up.
Works great for our household.
={="+"=}=
Independent Distributor of
Premier Designs
decophile
stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Deborah Stevenson) wrote:
>In <6b34nv$97b$1...@unx1.shsu.edu> std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell) writes:
>
>>So, when some jerk calls me at _my_ home to waster _my_ time,
>>I'm being an asshole to tell him to go to hell? I generally
>>just hang up unless they are being particularly obnoxious,
>>or unless I have the time to taunt them for a while and waste
>>their time.
>
>>But calling someone an asshole for being rude to a telemarketer
>>is like accusing someone who's shot a burgular in their home
>>of being a poor host.
>
>I'm afraid I can't agree. While I understand the impulse to be rude to a
>telemarketer, since there's technically no such thing as justified rudeness
>you simply end up with a rudeness draw (and your parallel falls apart
>since there are quicker ways of ending the wasting of your time than
>telling the telemarketer to go to hell). And I'd just as soon not be at the
>same level as a telemarketer anyway.
Exactly! Ripping into the caller is just killing the messenger. The
idea is to get them to stop calling and get off the list. That`s the
bottom line and being cruel to them will not accomplish this. People
will always respond positively when treated with respect and dignity.
Only when this fails and the calls continue, well..........
>
>This doesn't mean I have a lot of sympathy for telemarketers who complain
>about such responses--if you drop in unannounced, you have to take what
>you get. But it doesn't make them stellar responses.
>
>Polite detailed inquiries, perhaps with extensive explanations as to how
>exactly this was relevant to your situation, are another matter :-).
Deborah Stevenson
>So, when some jerk calls me at _my_ home to waster _my_ time,
>I'm being an asshole to tell him to go to hell? I generally
>just hang up unless they are being particularly obnoxious,
>or unless I have the time to taunt them for a while and waste
>their time.
>But calling someone an asshole for being rude to a telemarketer
>is like accusing someone who's shot a burgular in their home
>of being a poor host.
I'm afraid I can't agree. While I understand the impulse to be rude to a
telemarketer, since there's technically no such thing as justified rudeness
you simply end up with a rudeness draw (and your parallel falls apart
since there are quicker ways of ending the wasting of your time than
telling the telemarketer to go to hell). And I'd just as soon not be at the
same level as a telemarketer anyway.
This doesn't mean I have a lot of sympathy for telemarketers who complain
about such responses--if you drop in unannounced, you have to take what
you get. But it doesn't make them stellar responses.
Polite detailed inquiries, perhaps with extensive explanations as to how
exactly this was relevant to your situation, are another matter :-).
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
[Bev]
William S. Rowell <std...@unx1.shsu.edu> wrote:
> Ken M. (pobo...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : If telemarketers frequently call you, buy the "Easy Hang Up" device.
> : When you hear the person starting with their sales pitch, just push the
> : button on the unit, and they are history. They will hear a message
> : telling them NOT to call you again.
> : The unit, which I've used for about two years, is available at:
> snip
> : I use this device all the time. It works!
> I can't understand why anyone would cough up cash for such a
> device when saying "F___ yourself." Is free and takes even
> less time than pushing a button on a box...
And it's frugal therapy, too! And exercise for the vocal cords. And
vocabulary improvement -- try out those new words you've heard on TV.
People who are so reluctant to chew out an unwelcome intruder that they
will actually spend money on a device that does it politely have problems
that can't be solved by a gadget. Besides, do you get one for each phone?
What if you generally carry your cordless phone around the house? Do you
hve to run to the unit each time?
Bev *To e-mail me, change nOt.gov to nEt*
************************************************************
The purpose of driving is to get there first, or not at all.
sidelia reyna
How about asking the telemarketer to hold on a minute and then just
leaving the phone off the hook until they hang up. This works if you
don't have any use for the phone for 10-15 minutes and want to run up
their bill. If you're particularly vicious, you could pick up the phone
every couple of minutes and tell them it'll only be one more minute --
please don't hang up!
Of course, they will eventually hang up and call back again...
Sidelia
In a previous article, pobo...@ix.netcom.com ("Ken
M.") says:
>70473...@compuserve.com wrote:
>>
>> Pacific Bell offered me a free caller ID box if I subscribed to caller ID
>> for at least a month. Well, the month is over, and I've cancelled.
>> Reason for this is almost every call that I receive were from a phone
>> with caller ID blocking. I figured, what a waste. For $5.00 a month, I
--
*** To have its sins forgiven mankind has only to declare them to be what
they really are. -- Karl Marx ***
ZÉRö
>> Probably the truest statement
>>I know of is that if you are solicited in your home for a
>>product you had not thought of buying, the person calling is
>>the least likely to offer the best product or service that
>>you could find.
>
>True again.
I'm not sure that is universal. My wife works for Olan Mills where
they've come under competition from Wal-Mart/K-Mart, etc where they
sell the cheapo deals, so they do telemarketing to promote their
"Watch me Grow Plan" which is something like 5 sittings with a free
8x10 photo each time for $20, which isn't too bad. And Olan Mills is
almost the best photography studio around.
Dave R.
Where I live we, unfortunately, have an outbound call center (ie.
telemarketing) and I have some friends that work there. They hate the job, but
it helps them pay their way through college.
Anyway, a friend who recently quit told me the best way to piss the caller
off. Let them go through the sales pitch, if you say no, they read the "2nd
attempt" sound interested, then say "yeah sure", well, then they have to get
your permission on tape (they sell insurance and credit cards mainly so it
might be different for other products/services), so they gotta start the
recording, and give the sales pitch on tape again with all the small print, and
then you are supposed to say "yes". Well, say "no" - you wasted the guy's time
and now they have a worthless recording. I guess you also kind of wastes your
time, but I've done it and it feels damn good when you can feel the frustration
in their voice! :)
D.-
Dave R.
I know a doctor who sometimes needs to call patients from his own home. He was
telling me that he has to use Caller ID blocker because otherwise he gets call
from people at all times at night about anything and everything while they
should be calling the hospital. I guess I can see his point.
D.-
Gary Dyrkacz wrote:
> >70473...@compuserve.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Pacific Bell offered me a free caller ID box if I subscribed to caller ID
> >> for at least a month. Well, the month is over, and I've cancelled.
> >> Reason for this is almost every call that I receive were from a phone
> >> with caller ID blocking. I figured, what a waste. For $5.00 a month, I
> >> think I only had three calls from unblocked numbers. An absolute
> >> worthless service. .
>
> We ran into a curious problem with caller ID. My wife is a grade
> school teacher. Naturally for various reasons she often needs to
> contact parents at home. Usually this is in the evening from our home
> phone. When she taught in a fairly affluent school district, she would
> leave a message on the parents machine to call her at school. Now she
> works in a less affluent district, and when she started we began to
> get a lot of calls at home even though she did not offer our home
> phone number. It turns out many of the people in the less affluant
> district seem to have caller ID. Now she has to block it when she
> calls them. The only thing we could figure out is that maybe they are
> trying to screen out calls from bill collectors or former spouses.
Lone ArRanger
> >school teacher. Naturally for various reasons she often needs to
> >contact parents at home. Usually this is in the evening from our home
> >phone. When she taught in a fairly affluent school district, she would
> >leave a message on the parents machine to call her at school. Now she
> >works in a less affluent district, and when she started we began to
> >get a lot of calls at home even though she did not offer our home
> >phone number. It turns out many of the people in the less affluant
> >district seem to have caller ID. Now she has to block it when she
> >calls them. The only thing we could figure out is that maybe they are
> >trying to screen out calls from bill collectors or former spouses.
>
> a business. I liked to use my office where because it was quite and
> comfertable. No one needed to call back, but if they did, they
> should use the published number of the business. But, occasinally I
> would get a call from someone who used caller ID. This is a bother
> because I have important work (even if it's just relaxing) and I don't
> want to be desturbed. So, I stopped using my office phone to call
> these people, heck, I just stopped doing people the favor of calling.
>
> on a number from caller-ID. The caller isn't choosing to give a
> phone number to call. If someone wants to get messages, get an
> answering or stay home.
Wow, you're calling other people rude? What a moron you are (you just
love that word, don't you?). I can't imagine that you do any important
work at all. I just assume that you are a pimply skinned little twerp
who got a computer as a present when you stopped peeing your pants. And
learn to spell.
Wow, I feel so much better !!!
Lone ArRanger
> >district seem to have caller ID.
>
> these days (well at least in California). They've given up on selling
> Caller-ID
> to the middle and upper class and now target the people that can least
> afford it. Ditto for premium cable, etc.
Oh No, not another EVIL big business plot !!! How will we ever survive
these horrible people ?
Lone ArRanger
bas...@ktb.not.gov, [Bev] wrote:
>
> William S. Rowell <std...@unx1.shsu.edu> wrote:
> > Ken M. (pobo...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> > : If telemarketers frequently call you, buy the "Easy Hang Up" device.
> > : When you hear the person starting with their sales pitch, just push the
> > : button on the unit, and they are history. They will hear a message
> > : telling them NOT to call you again.
> > : The unit, which I've used for about two years, is available at:
> > snip
> > : I use this device all the time. It works!
>
> > I can't understand why anyone would cough up cash for such a
> > device when saying "F___ yourself." Is free and takes even
> > less time than pushing a button on a box...
>
> And it's frugal therapy, too! And exercise for the vocal cords. And
> vocabulary improvement -- try out those new words you've heard on TV.
>
> People who are so reluctant to chew out an unwelcome intruder that they
> will actually spend money on a device that does it politely have problems
> that can't be solved by a gadget.
Oh Gee, another amateur psychologist. Please, do tell, what might that
problem be?
If people find caller ID to be helpful, then so be it. Leave the
psychonalysis to the professionals. You enjoy chewing out people on the
phone? And you think "others" have the problem ?
> Besides, do you get one for each phone?
> What if you generally carry your cordless phone around the house? Do you
> hve to run to the unit each time?
>
> Bev *To e-mail me, change nOt.gov to nEt*
There are cordless phones with caller ID Bev.
linda-renee
Lone ArRanger wrote:
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
That's right. Don't you know only rich folk have a god-given right to
Caller ID and premium cable?
I'd like to know how they're only targeting a particular class of
people. I get blurbs for Caller ID (which I already have) tucked into
my phone bill, discount stores periodically run promos for caller ID
boxes, and I see ads for the service (featuring middle-class-looking
actors) on TV. Premium cable gets advertised similarly. Seems pretty
much like across-the-board marketing to me. The only thing I can think
is that maybe rich folks can afford to get satellite TV and dump their
cable, so the cable companies need to broaden their customer base.
--
Linda
"I can't believe that we are going to let a majority of the people
decide what's best for this state." LA State Rep J. Travis
Michael Williams
In article <34d5db0b...@news.pipeline.com>, decop...@pipeline.com wrote:
>Exactly! Ripping into the caller is just killing the messenger. The
>idea is to get them to stop calling and get off the list. That`s the
>bottom line and being cruel to them will not accomplish this. People
>will always respond positively when treated with respect and dignity.
>Only when this fails and the calls continue, well..........
But shouldn't this go both ways? Telemarketers (both the phone solicitors and
the businesses that employ them) know that their calls annoy people, but they
don't seem to care. So by indiscriminately calling people to sell them
things, they are not showing respect or dignity towards those they are
bothering.
I'm not saying that I support being cruel to telemarketers--although in fact I
do--I'm just saying that they're not showing respect or dignity toward people
by making marketing calls when they are fully aware that such calls annoy
others. They simply don't appear to care.
--
mikew 99 @
hotmail.com
Jason Mohammed Bubba Ganesh
Olan Mills represents the very worst in portraiture. They're name is synonymous with unimaginative, mediocre and cheap.
William S. Rowell wrote:
> ZÉRö (nhz...@exis.net) wrote:
> : I'm not sure that is universal. My wife works for Olan Mills where
> : they've come under competition from Wal-Mart/K-Mart, etc where they
> : sell the cheapo deals, so they do telemarketing to promote their
> : "Watch me Grow Plan" which is something like 5 sittings with a free
> : 8x10 photo each time for $20, which isn't too bad. And Olan Mills is
> : almost the best photography studio around.
>
> Uh.... what?
>
> : Information for all!
Jason Mohammed Bubba Ganesh
Captain
Michael Williams wrote:
>
> In article <34d5db0b...@news.pipeline.com>, decop...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >Exactly! Ripping into the caller is just killing the messenger. The
> >idea is to get them to stop calling and get off the list. That`s the
> >bottom line and being cruel to them will not accomplish this. People
> >will always respond positively when treated with respect and dignity.
> >Only when this fails and the calls continue, well..........
>
> But shouldn't this go both ways? Telemarketers (both the phone solicitors and
> the businesses that employ them) know that their calls annoy people, but they
> don't seem to care.
They don't seem to care because they don't care. They are
only concerned about the number of positive responses and
if its 2%, then they are perfectly willing to annoy the other
98%. As long as the 2% provides enough return, they are
satisfied.
Karen Simmons
ZÉRö wrote:
> Ok, sure. If you say so. We had a flood in my area, and some friends
> have pictures from both the Wal-Mart studios and Olan Mills, and the
> Olan Mills ones were just fine after drying out, but the walmart ones
> bled off the paper. If you know a better studio, tell me, I'd like to
> try it.
If this is your sole criteria for quality, then I guess you got it right
the first time. Olan Mills rocks! Go for it.
Karen
--
------------------------------
Karen Simmons Photography
Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.ks-photography.com
------------------------------
Deborah Stevenson
In <6b5jlp$db...@hpcc883.corp.hp.com> mi...@see.sig (Michael Williams) writes:
>In article <34d5db0b...@news.pipeline.com>, decop...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>Exactly! Ripping into the caller is just killing the messenger. The
>>idea is to get them to stop calling and get off the list. That`s the
>>bottom line and being cruel to them will not accomplish this. People
>>will always respond positively when treated with respect and dignity.
>>Only when this fails and the calls continue, well..........
I will say I think you're being a bit overoptimistic with that "always,"
decophile. It's just a moot point whether people respond positively or not--
you still don't get to misbehave.
>But shouldn't this go both ways? Telemarketers (both the phone solicitors and
>the businesses that employ them) know that their calls annoy people, but they
>don't seem to care. So by indiscriminately calling people to sell them
>things, they are not showing respect or dignity towards those they are
>bothering.
>I'm not saying that I support being cruel to telemarketers--although in fact I
>do--I'm just saying that they're not showing respect or dignity toward people
>by making marketing calls when they are fully aware that such calls annoy
>others. They simply don't appear to care.
Or to care enough to quit. However, in the great land of etiquette,
"give as good as you get" is not actually the rule--"rising above it" is
in fact the encouraged behavior. The fact that it's rude for someone to
call you thusly doesn't get you off the hook for being rude back. Again,
the parallels to shooting a burglar don't wash--nobody's yet to prove
that being rude gets you off a list or a phone any faster than being
polite. (As for as the hideous idea that it gets you on longer, I hope
those telemarketers who would do such a thing will be forced to pay the
$500 fine out of their own pockets.)
There aren't any etiquette police around to haul you away to a
lace-curtained parlor somewhere to serve your term, so it's not like
something terrible will happen to you for your approach. But in etiquette
terms it's still wrong.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
ZÉRö
>Olan Mills represents the very worst in portraiture. They're name is synonymous with >unimaginative, mediocre and cheap.
Ok, sure. If you say so. We had a flood in my area, and some friends
have pictures from both the Wal-Mart studios and Olan Mills, and the
Olan Mills ones were just fine after drying out, but the walmart ones
bled off the paper. If you know a better studio, tell me, I'd like to
try it.
ZÉRö
Remove "no." and ".spam" from email to reply.
Don't read below this line.
ZÉRö
On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 23:11:24 GMT, mi...@see.sig (Michael Williams)
wrote:
>But shouldn't this go both ways? Telemarketers (both the phone solicitors and
>the businesses that employ them) know that their calls annoy people, but they
>don't seem to care. So by indiscriminately calling people to sell them
>things, they are not showing respect or dignity towards those they are
>bothering.
It's worse than annoying. I work on the mid shift 1/3 of the time and
when I sleep in the daytime it's absolutely awful. I can't sleep! I
can't turn off the phone because sometimes my wife needs me to find
some info for her, so I suffer from sleep deprivation during mids.
[Bev]
> bas...@ktb.not.gov, [Bev] wrote:
>> And it's frugal therapy, too! And exercise for the vocal cords. And
>> vocabulary improvement -- try out those new words you've heard on TV.
>> People who are so reluctant to chew out an unwelcome intruder that they
>> will actually spend money on a device that does it politely have
>> problems that can't be solved by a gadget.
Lone ArRanger <m...@kissoff.com> wrote:
> Oh Gee, another amateur psychologist. Please, do tell, what might that
> problem be?
Low self esteem? In my youth, that was called an inferiority
complex, but I guess they stopped that when they figured out that pretty
much everybody who had one actually deserved it. Same with low
self-esteem, of course, but it sounds a little less judgmental. Next
question, please...
> If people find caller ID to be helpful, then so be it. Leave the
> psychonalysis to the professionals. You enjoy chewing out people on the
> phone? And you think "others" have the problem ?
I enjoy mouthing off to people who annoy me. So do you,
apparently.
>> Besides, do you get one for each phone?
>> What if you generally carry your cordless phone around the house? Do you
>> hve to run to the unit each time?
> There are cordless phones with caller ID Bev.
I meant the boxes that politely tell the caller to fuck off. Read it
again.
Bev *To e-mail me, change nOt.gov to nEt*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I worry that the person who thought up Muzak may be
thinking up something else." --Lily Tomlin
Will Bell
In a previous article, nhz...@exis.net.NO.SPAM.WANTED (ZÉRö) wrote:
>Ok, sure. If you say so. We had a flood in my area, and some friends
>have pictures from both the Wal-Mart studios and Olan Mills, and the
>Olan Mills ones were just fine after drying out, but the walmart ones
>bled off the paper. If you know a better studio, tell me, I'd like to
>try it.
Any local studio is most likely better than Olan Mills. Just because
Olan Mills offers photos on better quality paper doesn't mean much.
The pain I have to go thru to get them hardly justifies the means.
Plus, there's no real artistry there; local studios have photographers
who care about the art form.
I consider Olan Mills and Sears equivalent as far as creativity goes.
Olan Mills does offer pictures having better physical quality, I'll
concede that, but Sears is cheaper and they get my vote for now, seeing
as how we're currently having a photo session every 6 months while our
son is still a baby and outgrowing his portraits very quickly.
--
Will Bell -- wbb at netcom dot com -- DeepinahartaTexas
Spamblock removed since it wasn't doing any good anyway.
Bill
First, I'm definitely not a telemarketer. In fact I'm retired from a
profession that had nothing to do with telephones (except the occasional
call home).
Now, I said that to say this. Everyone has their little "nitch" in the job
market. Telemarketers are just trying to make a living. They probably
don't enjoy calling us any more then we like our suppers interrupted by
their calls.
If you don't want to listen to their sales pitch (and I generally
don't--depends upon my mood) then thank them for calling, ask them to
refrain from calling you again, and say goodbye. It can all be done in a
civil manner. It's not necessary to show your macho image by hanging up on
them.
Maybe my thoughts are entirely wrong, but I believe that we should treat
others the way we want to be treated.
--
Bill
faru...@flex.net
kingsnake
Hey, Dufus!
I gotta 'spearmint for you. Ya like ta'
'esperiment?
(I am being facetious here ...)
Take a print from Olan Mills, then take a print
from Fotomat,
or Payless, or Walmart ... and toss each into a
5.25%
sodium hypochlorite solution at 100º F. for two
minutes,
agitate, and rinse under cold running water.
Now, compare.
I BET YOU CAN'T !!!
I eat at Mc Donalds ... =very= rarely .. because I
am a good cook.
Why would I use Olan Mills, then ???
Well ...
I'll have to finish this post later -
I gotta run; I have an appointment with Sears
to have some pictures taken ...
<g>
--
ZÉRö wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 18:19:07 -0600, Jason Mohammed Bubba Ganesh
> <we...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >Olan Mills represents the very worst in portraiture. They're name is synonymous with >unimaginative, mediocre and cheap.
>
> Ok, sure. If you say so. We had a flood in my area, and some friends
> have pictures from both the Wal-Mart studios and Olan Mills, and the
> Olan Mills ones were just fine after drying out, but the walmart ones
> bled off the paper. If you know a better studio, tell me, I'd like to
> try it.
Jane Benn
I agree, Bill. It's not usually necessary to do anything but say a
polite "No, thank you" to get rid of a telemarketer.
As long as they remain polite and professional, I see no reason to
penalize them for trying to earn a living. In fact, I admire them for
choosing to accept an unpopular, low-paying job, when the other choice
would usually be welfare or unemployment insurance. The people who do
this don't usually have a lot of career options.
I'd rather put up with a little inconvenience than having my taxed
raised AGAIN.
When they get rude or refuse to hang up, then I may play little games
with them, but not until they make it impossible for me to escape with
my manners still intact.
> --
> Bill
> faru...@flex.net
--
Jane
I have a CHOCOLATE chip in MY computer!
Loan Arranger
bas...@ktb.not.gov, [Bev] wrote:
>
> > bas...@ktb.not.gov, [Bev] wrote:
>
> >> And it's frugal therapy, too! And exercise for the vocal cords. And
> >> vocabulary improvement -- try out those new words you've heard on TV.
> >> People who are so reluctant to chew out an unwelcome intruder that they
> >> will actually spend money on a device that does it politely have
> >> problems that can't be solved by a gadget.
>
> Lone ArRanger <m...@kissoff.com> wrote:
> > Oh Gee, another amateur psychologist. Please, do tell, what might that
> > problem be?
> Low self esteem? In my youth, that was called an inferiority
> complex, but I guess they stopped that when they figured out that pretty
> much everybody who had one actually deserved it. Same with low
> self-esteem, of course, but it sounds a little less judgmental. Next
> question, please...
>
politically correct figured out that it was really a deep rooted mental
condition that required years of expensive therapy.
> > If people find caller ID to be helpful, then so be it. Leave the
> > psychonalysis to the professionals. You enjoy chewing out people on the
> > phone? And you think "others" have the problem ?
> I enjoy mouthing off to people who annoy me. So do you,
> apparently.
>
Now I see what you mean about "problems". You would much rather mouth
off than politely say "no" to the annoying person who dared to ring your
phone. Don't you think there is a danger in pissing off someone who
knows who YOU are, while you know nothing about them? What happens when
Postal Workers start calling to sell you stamps? Don't piss them off !
> >> Besides, do you get one for each phone?
> >> What if you generally carry your cordless phone around the house? Do you
> >> hve to run to the unit each time?
>
> > There are cordless phones with caller ID Bev.
>
> I meant the boxes that politely tell the caller to fuck off. Read it
> again.
>
>
Those boxes can be made to answer automatically if they receive a
"blocked" or "unknown" call. You can even program individual numbers to
be selectivelt answered. My "Mother in Law" comes to mind. But then,
where would be the fun in that?
Loan Arranger
ZÉRö wrote:
>
>
> It's worse than annoying. I work on the mid shift 1/3 of the time and
> when I sleep in the daytime it's absolutely awful. I can't sleep! I
> can't turn off the phone because sometimes my wife needs me to find
> some info for her, so I suffer from sleep deprivation during mids.
> Remove "no." and ".spam" from email to reply.
saying this as an excuse for the telemarketers, but it seems like a
cheap solution to your " wife calling/sleep " problem.
brett
Well, at least they have jobs and, more importantly, are not stealing or
drawing welfare (telemarketers make about $6.00 an hour on average for a
very stressful job). I did this and another job while working on my J.D. at
UT. It was an awful job but it paid the bills and my children were able to
eat. Of course, I could have done it the lazy way and drew welfare and
over extended myself in student loans--but then the taxpayers would have to
pay my tab. The job only lasted a year; thereafter, I begun my clerkship
and said farewell forever. Now I am practicing law successfully.
Conclusion: telemarketing is not a career path for success--but it (helps)
pay the bills. Therefore, stop being so narrow-minded Doobie.
Also, I have checked you out Doobie because of your attacks on people in
this newsgroup. You are a teen that has to worry about his mother taking
his computer (which has happened in the past). You come to this newsgroup
and try to start fights with about everyone (yes people check it out). I
do not refute you are entitled to your opinion, but do you ever say
anything positive or CLEAN? It is always better to express yourself
pragmatically rather than belligerently. Just a few words you should
consider henceforth.
Doobie wrote in message <34d3d2dc...@news.dialnet.net>...
>Some people just want the world to know that they're @$$holes
>and such people certainly deserve a little retaliation. But still,
>there's no excuse for anyone to be a telemarketer.
Dave C.
Why should he have to buy a pager? Telemarketing is illegal. That's
right, it's illegal. The federal law that virtually outlawed
telemarketing is not being *enforced* yet, because of a court challenge
by (believe it or not) a chimney sweep in Washington (Or Oregon?, I
don't remember) The law is PL 102-243 (I hope I got that right, from
memory.) The relevant part of the law basically says that *machines*
can not be used to make phone calls for marketing purposes. If the
telemarketers can't use auto-diallers to bug people, that will cut
telemarketer's profits dramatically, and put a lot of telemarketers out
of business. And this helpful law is being held up by a chimney sweep.
Doesn't that figure? I also sleep during the day. Fortunately, I can
turn my phone off, usually. But I believe telemarketing should be
*banned* outright. Because not everybody sleeps between 9PM and 9AM.
If you are calling somebody you do not know, it is safe to assume that
you *might* be waking them up, no matter what hours they work (or don't
work). And it's often VERY hard (if not impossible) to get back to
sleep once these scumbags have interrupted you. At times that I can't
turn my phone off, telemarketing has a dramatic negative impact on my
*health* because I don't get enough sleep. This is more than a minor
nuisance, it is dangerous! I've fallen asleep behind the wheel of my
automobile twice. No, nothing happened, I was lucky. The first time, I
woke up before I ran off the wrong side of the road, and managed to
recover in time. The second time, I rear-ended a van with no damage to
the van and only minor damage to my car. But it wasn't like I could
choose *not* to go to work, or pull off to the side of the road to sleep
a while. In this area, that would be suicide. It should be illegal to
call somebody for telemarketing purposes *period*, unless you have their
permission to call them. IMHO -Dave
On hotmail.com, I am user "davec2". (email address altered to fool
spambots)
Loan Arranger wrote in message <34D738...@here.com>...
Sue Price
Based on my one experience with Olan Mills, I will
never use them myself.
Thanksgiving of 1996, my sister and I traveled to see our
parents. Since my brother and his family lived in the same town,
this was a great time to get a family portrait.
First of all, Olan Mills is so busy during this season that they
QUADRUPLE book their appointments. So we ended up
waiting an hour after our reserved time, because they were so
backed up.
When we finally got in, everything was rush-rush, and the pictures
showed it as I'll describe later. My nephew was only 2, and not
into the whole situation. The photographer was very impatient with
him. For his solo picture, we finally got him to settle down by putting
him on a carousel- horse prop they had. Then when it was time for
the whole group, he got restless again. We suggested bringing the
horse back out because he had liked that, but the photographer
brusquely said, "I don't have time to bring that back over." So instead
of taking 5 seconds to put the horse back into position, she spent
the next 10 minutes trying to calm him down.
As for the pictures themselves, we were very disappointed. The lighting
was awful. I in the bottom right corner was in too much light, while
my brother in the upper left corner was all in shadows. Stuff like
that,
which was a direct result of her rushing due to overbooking, and
probably just not caring that much.
I agree with the other posters, use a private studio instead of Olan
Mills.
With the private places, it's usually a labor of love, and a matter of
pride
to make your pictures as good as they can be.
Tomh
I agree, We bought one of their packages and were so dissatisfied
we didn't use half of them. First off their service is horrible, they over book
so you have to wait 30 min to an hour before they sit you, by the time they do sit
you, your all messed up and tired. One time we we had an appointment,
we showed up on time and they closed early with no warning. They said
they made a mistake, and only offered to reschedule us. Considering how much
work it is to get a family ready we were not too pleased. As far as picture
quality goes, they are pretty mediocre at best. We have been going to
a local photographer ( Louie Photography Tigard Or. ) and have been
very pleased. The pictures we've got from him are far superior to
Olen Mills and the Service and personal attention is wonderful. Yes he
does cost more but its defiantly worth it.
Patti
On 3 Feb 1998 02:15:28 -0600, std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell)
wrote:
<snip>
>Roaches, rats, and leeches (oh my!) have their niche in the world,
>too, but we don't invite them into our homes, either. :-)
>
But, the above creatures aren't human. Telemarketers are and even if
they are annoying, they still deserve to be treated as a human being.
If you stop and think about it, rudeness and hostility come back on
you many times over. That telemarketer that you were so obnoxious to
10 years ago might be a loan officer at the bank that you have applied
to for a loan for a new car. S/he might be a person that is in a
position to help you but will not because you treated them like they
were scum. Don't forget that they know your name most of the time, and
they may know other details that might set you apart from all of the
other "Bill Smiths" in the world and most people don't forget the name
or face of someone that has been mean to them. I am not implying that
you should be syrupy sweet or listen to a sales pitch if you are not
interested but a polite and firm "No thank you" does the trick with no
hard feelings on either side. Telemarketers are just people trying to
make a living, we all have to make money in order to survive. What is
the point of being belligerent?
Patti
To reply by e-mail, remove the dont.want.any in front of my e-mail
address.
decophile
stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Deborah Stevenson) wrote:
>In <6b5jlp$db...@hpcc883.corp.hp.com> mi...@see.sig (Michael Williams) writes:
>
>>In article <34d5db0b...@news.pipeline.com>, decop...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>>Exactly! Ripping into the caller is just killing the messenger. The
>>>idea is to get them to stop calling and get off the list. That`s the
>>>bottom line and being cruel to them will not accomplish this. People
>>>will always respond positively when treated with respect and dignity.
>>>Only when this fails and the calls continue, well..........
>
>I will say I think you're being a bit overoptimistic with that "always,"
>decophile. It's just a moot point whether people respond positively or not--
>you still don't get to misbehave.
>
>>But shouldn't this go both ways? Telemarketers (both the phone solicitors and
>>the businesses that employ them) know that their calls annoy people, but they
>>don't seem to care. So by indiscriminately calling people to sell them
>>things, they are not showing respect or dignity towards those they are
>>bothering.
>
>>I'm not saying that I support being cruel to telemarketers--although in fact I
>>do--I'm just saying that they're not showing respect or dignity toward people
>>by making marketing calls when they are fully aware that such calls annoy
>>others. They simply don't appear to care.
I still contend that if you`re serious about stopping the calls, then
ripping into these people is just a quick fix, it won`t get you off
their list and that`s the bottom line, right? Remember, that list
"will" be passed on.
All I`m saying is that the people hired to do telemarketing,
regardless of how extensively they`re coached on how to handle any
response, are in fact just people, and that can work in your favor if
you handle it right.
Look at it this way. Waking up every morning to a job that requires
you to piss people off who then in turn heap every kind of berserk
freak-out and rabid insult at you, is a job very few people are
comfortable with. The monotony alone of reading that pitch over and
over must be overwhelming not to mention that the number of positive
hits they get are very few and very far between.
Cutting into their pitch, addressing them by name, acknowledging that
they must be exhausted and bored to death doing that job can sometimes
be enough to snap them out of "sales pitch zombie mode" and see you as
a person and not just another number/another pitch. Then politely
state that any help they can provide in getting you off the list would
be most appreciated. Then thank her/him by name. You may have been the
only civil voice they`ve heard all day and they just might do it if
they can. It really doen`t take anymore time than a good rant. Of
course, there`s no quick way to tell weather or not they did it, but
you stand a better chance than the alternative......and I know that
doesn`t work.
For me anyway, I have noticed that over the past year of doing it this
way (Along with making sure I get on no more list) the number of calls
have dropped from almost one or two a day at times, to just a few a
week. So I know I`m getting off some list. The ones who do continue to
call back are the ones responsible for "that" list ending up in the
hands of the new callers. I know very well who they are and they get
no mercy from me.
In any case, it`s a pain in the butt and I`m truly tired of them and
spammers and just sales people in general. In a society where much of
everything is self service anyway, I don`t see a need for sales people
of any kind, anymore. All we need is a central information center like
some supermarkets have.
When I have a question, I need someone who`s stationed in one place. I
don`t want them following me around and I don`t want to search the
entire store for them. But most importantly, if I want it, I`ll get it
and there`s nothing that anyone can say that will sway me one way or
another when my mind`s made up. I think most people are this way.
Not to stray too far off the subject, anyone remember the Monty Python
skit about the woman answering a knock at her door by a man claiming
to be a burglar wanting only to come in and ransack her house? She
refuses to let him in for fear he might really be an encyclpedia
salesman just posing as a burglar.
It just came to mind.
Gene
Decophile
(Remove the "22" to respond)
http://www.pipeline.com/~decophile
(Updated 11/5/97)
Steven M. Scharf
Lone ArRanger wrote in message <34D637...@kissoff.com>...
>Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>
>> Gary Dyrkacz wrote in message <34d36f1a...@news.mcs.com>...
>>
>> >It turns out many of the people in the less affluant
>> >district seem to have caller ID.
>>
>> You are right. This is the thrust of the marketing by the phone companies
>> these days (well at least in California). They've given up on selling
>> Caller-ID
>> to the middle and upper class and now target the people that can least
>> afford it. Ditto for premium cable, etc.
>
>
>Oh No, not another EVIL big business plot !!! How will we ever survive
>these horrible people ?
No, these companies are not evil, they are following basic marketing--
if you can't build a better product find a customer base that will buy
what you have. Car companies do this all the time, witness 'A different
kind of company, a different kind of car.'
[Bev]
brett some...@bellatlantic.net> <<no3232spam> wrote:
> Well, at least they have jobs and, more importantly, are not stealing or
> drawing welfare (telemarketers make about $6.00 an hour on average for a
> very stressful job). I did this and another job while working on my J.D. at
> UT.
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH! It's even worse than we thought -- telemarketers are
lawyer-larvae!
Bev *To e-mail me, change nOt.gov to nEt*
***************************************************
"Real men don't have six-packs. They've got kegs."
-- Newsweek
[Bev]
Loan Arranger <yan...@here.com> wrote:
> Those boxes can be made to answer automatically if they receive a
> "blocked" or "unknown" call. You can even program individual numbers to
> be selectivelt answered. My "Mother in Law" comes to mind. But then,
> where would be the fun in that?
How do you push the button on the unit when you find out that it's an
unblocked telemarketer if you have the phone in a different room from the
box with the button? Last I heard people used them to say things like
"I'm terribly sorry but the owner of this messaging unit never accepts
unblocked calls and never buys from telemarketers have a nice day."
When your MIL calls, you can say "Hi, Ma--" and then "accidentally" push
the button. Do this several times in a row, apologizing profusely each
time. Yell that your wife will call her back when the phone starts
working again. You don't think that's fun?
Bev *To e-mail me, change nOt.gov to nEt*
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Theodore Davis
Dave C. wrote:
>
> Why should he have to buy a pager? Telemarketing is illegal. That's
> right, it's illegal. The federal law that virtually outlawed
> telemarketing is not being *enforced* yet, because of a court challenge
> by (believe it or not) a chimney sweep in Washington (Or Oregon?, I
> don't remember) The law is PL 102-243 (I hope I got that right, from
> memory.) The relevant part of the law basically says that *machines*
> can not be used to make phone calls for marketing purposes. If the
> telemarketers can't use auto-diallers to bug people, that will cut
> telemarketer's profits dramatically, and put a lot of telemarketers out
> of business.
Well, it's not *illegal* then -- is it? Machines haven't been calling my
home -- real people have!
Sheesh!
Ted
--
See some sample photos taken with my new Olympus digital camera at:
http://www.geocities.com/~digitcam/
Dave C.
Are you sure that it was a real person who actually *dialled* your
number? About 50% of telemarketing calls, you will say Hello? (pause)
Then you will say Hello? again. (if you haven't figured it out and hung
up yet) The delay is the *machine* hearing a "human" voice (yours)
saying hello, and trying to transfer you to an available salesman.
That's why if you say "Hello?" and you don't immediately get a reply,
you should hang up. You've just been "telemarketed" by a machine. Yes,
if you hang on the line long enough, of course a human being is going to
talk to you, and try to sell you whatever garbage they are being paid to
push. But you wouldn't receive nearly so many telemarketing calls if
the law against machines being used for telemarketing purposes was being
enforced already, because a human being would actually have to dial your
number. (or thousands of others, until someone answers) -Dave
On hotmail.com, I am user "davec2". (email address altered to fool
spambots)
|Dave C. wrote:
Dave C.
Bob- It is possible that I misread the law. Unfortunately, I don't
have a copy in front of me at the moment and it was a few years ago that
I actually read it. This was right before it was shot down by the court
challenge from the chimney sweep. I'm pretty sure, though, that it
stated that machines could not be used to make telephone calls for
marketing purposes. That, to me, meant that the machine could not
*dial* your phone number, a human being actually had to dial. But I
could have read that wrong. -Dave
On hotmail.com, I am user "davec2". (email address altered to fool
spambots)
|I believe you have misread or misrepresented the law, Dave. As I
|recall, the law prohibits users from using a telemarketing machine
|that employs a recorded message without first being introduced by a
|live operator and permission being given to play the tape. Until now,
|most of the telemarketers who employ these machines count on users
|hanging up before their company can be identified if they are not
|interested, so they don't get reported as often as they should.
|
|
Curtis Wheeler
Dave C. wrote:
> Why should he have to buy a pager? Telemarketing is illegal. That's
> right, it's illegal. The federal law that virtually outlawed
> telemarketing is not being *enforced* yet, because of a court challenge
> by (believe it or not) a chimney sweep in Washington (Or Oregon?, I
> don't remember) The law is PL 102-243 (I hope I got that right, from
> memory.) The relevant part of the law basically says that *machines*
> can not be used to make phone calls for marketing purposes. If the
> telemarketers can't use auto-diallers to bug people, that will cut
> telemarketer's profits dramatically, and put a lot of telemarketers out
> of business.
It would be interesting to see the text of PL 102-243. Federal law
prohibits the use of "auto-dialers". But for the purposes of the
federal law, an "auto-dialer" is defined as a device that calls randomly
or sequantially generated numbers. If the dialing device works from a
list or or directory, its not illegal.
Roger Alexander
Lone ArRanger wrote:
> Doobie wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:45:14 GMT, dyr...@mcs.com (Gary Dyrkacz)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >We ran into a curious problem with caller ID. My wife is a grade
> > >school teacher. Naturally for various reasons she often needs to
> > >contact parents at home. Usually this is in the evening from our home
> > >phone. When she taught in a fairly affluent school district, she would
> > >leave a message on the parents machine to call her at school. Now she
> > >works in a less affluent district, and when she started we began to
> > >get a lot of calls at home even though she did not offer our home
> > >phone number. It turns out many of the people in the less affluant
> > >district seem to have caller ID. Now she has to block it when she
> > >calls them. The only thing we could figure out is that maybe they are
> > >trying to screen out calls from bill collectors or former spouses.
> >
> > I had a job where I needed to make the occasional phone call for
> > a business. I liked to use my office where because it was quite and
> > comfertable. No one needed to call back, but if they did, they
> > should use the published number of the business. But, occasinally I
> > would get a call from someone who used caller ID. This is a bother
> > because I have important work (even if it's just relaxing) and I don't
> > want to be desturbed. So, I stopped using my office phone to call
> > these people, heck, I just stopped doing people the favor of calling.
> >
> > So, I have come to conclude that it is RUDE to call someone based
> > on a number from caller-ID. The caller isn't choosing to give a
> > phone number to call. If someone wants to get messages, get an
> > answering or stay home.
>
> Wow, you're calling other people rude? What a moron you are (you just
> love that word, don't you?). I can't imagine that you do any important
> work at all. I just assume that you are a pimply skinned little twerp
> who got a computer as a present when you stopped peeing your pants. And
> learn to spell.
>
> Wow, I feel so much better !!!
It's not sporting to shoot a setting duck.
Roger alexander
Lech K. Lesiak
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Dave C. wrote:
> memory.) The relevant part of the law basically says that *machines*
> can not be used to make phone calls for marketing purposes. If the
> telemarketers can't use auto-diallers to bug people, that will cut
> telemarketer's profits dramatically, and put a lot of telemarketers out
Fight machines with machines. I let my answering machine take all
incoming calls. Only once has a telemarketer left a message, and that was
one of those 'you have won a car' scammers from Montreal.
Cheers,
Lech
yankee
Leonard Martin wrote:
>
> In article <34D738...@here.com>, Loan Arranger <yan...@here.com> wrote:
>
> > ZÉRö wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > It's worse than annoying. I work on the mid shift 1/3 of the time and
> > > when I sleep in the daytime it's absolutely awful. I can't sleep! I
> > > can't turn off the phone because sometimes my wife needs me to find
> > > some info for her, so I suffer from sleep deprivation during mids.
> > > ZÉRö
> > > Remove "no." and ".spam" from email to reply.
> >
> > Why not get a pager and turn off your phone while you sleep? I'm not
> > saying this as an excuse for the telemarketers, but it seems like a
> > cheap solution to your " wife calling/sleep " problem.
>
> than admit that the telemarketing industry is a pain in the ass and
> behaving badly? Is it perhaps because if you took the latter step you'd
> have to admit that our society is going downhill--losing one after another
> social rule of civility in the grip of an increasing commercial frenzy?
>
For Christ's sake, Shut up. All of society is going downhill due to
telemarketers?
It was an "inexpensive" suggestion. Take your political ramblings to
another NG, creep. The only thing going downhill is the IQ of "chicken
little's" like you. I preferred it when computers were harder to use, so
people such as you (with minimal IQs) were relegated to crayons.
I think your mommy is calling you for bedtime.
toad
>For Christ's sake, Shut up. All of society is going downhill due to
>telemarketers?
>It was an "inexpensive" suggestion. Take your political ramblings to
>another NG, creep. The only thing going downhill is the IQ of "chicken
>little's" like you. I preferred it when computers were harder to use, so
>people such as you (with minimal IQs) were relegated to crayons.
>I think your mommy is calling you for bedtime.
Ha ha; that was funny.
Scott
John LaBrecque
linda-renee wrote:
>
> That's right. Don't you know only rich folk have a god-given right to
> Caller ID and premium cable?
>
> I'd like to know how they're only targeting a particular class of
> people. I get blurbs for Caller ID (which I already have) tucked into
> my phone bill, discount stores periodically run promos for caller ID
> boxes, and I see ads for the service (featuring middle-class-looking
> actors) on TV. Premium cable gets advertised similarly. Seems pretty
> much like across-the-board marketing to me. The only thing I can think
> is that maybe rich folks can afford to get satellite TV and dump their
> cable, so the cable companies need to broaden their customer base.
> --
> Linda
>
> "I can't believe that we are going to let a majority of the people
> decide what's best for this state." LA State Rep J. Travis
Hi Linda,
You seem to pop up in more newsgroups than I'm suscribed to!!! Of
course, getting on the internet is a part of my job so a good portion of
my day is devoted to it. I'll have to say that you do seem to speak
your mind and I don't think I'd want to get on the bad side of you.
--
Semper Fi
Jack L
http://members.aol.com/jitb/stand.htm
CIS-[GO ATTNCR]
"We just need to run our country the way we want to run our
lives." - Bill Clinton 1996
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Thomas Jefferson
"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to
depend greatly on our own point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi, ROTJ
S Hendricks
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:11:12 GMT, unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 03:00:02 -0500, "Ken M." <pobo...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Hey, whatever works best for you! The device is so easy to use, just
>>push the button, and it's a good investment for me ($19.95) and I don't
>>have to argue anymore.
>
>But it doesn't stop with the cost of the device - hell I wouldn't need one
>it is part of my phone already! the rip off is the monthly charge the
>telco gets for the service - I doubt if it is worth the $90 a year it costs
>when you can use your answering machine to screen your calls or just hang
>up on the sucker.
Answering machines, don't work when the phone is busy. When you miss that call
from the recruiter offering you a $50,000 a year salary increase , then you
appreciate caller ID and automatic call return. I use both and have the phone
company's voice mail service, which takes messages when the phone is busy (which
it frequently is with my heavy internet use).
Frequently, I refuse to take calls from unknown callers, which can be done
automatically with CID. This eliminates most unwanted telemarketers. However,
I prefer to have a record of who attempted to call, as I have partially invalid
relatives, who may not leave a message as some don't like machines.
In this area, ALL phone numbers have been used. So MANY calls to this number,
are for someone long departed. Even though the phone company tends to keep a
number inactive 6 months after a change, some people call for years on old
numbers. CID tends to eliminate the need to answer such calls.
You appreciate this when the previous owner of your number was a drug dealer!
>>Don't you just love those telemarketers who say, "But I'm not selling
>>anything......."
That's when you hang up. I simply don't answer ANY call that comes up with no
number.
>I never hear that part of their conversation they are talking to dead air
>by that time - why do/did you bother getting involved in a conversation
>with them in the first place?? Anyone who starts a dialog with one of them
>is as bad or even worse than they are when it comes to smarts!
Not at all. Besides, the poor people trying to make a living from telemarketing
are not to blame. The companies who try this technique are. When enough
consumer identify these companies and complain about them, it being illegal to
call unsolicted in many states, those companies can be eliminated.
S Hendricks
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 04:41:29 -0500, Theodore Davis <dav...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Dave C. wrote:
>>
>> Why should he have to buy a pager? Telemarketing is illegal. That's
>> right, it's illegal. The federal law that virtually outlawed
>> telemarketing is not being *enforced* yet, because of a court challenge
>> by (believe it or not) a chimney sweep in Washington (Or Oregon?, I
>> don't remember) The law is PL 102-243 (I hope I got that right, from
>> memory.) The relevant part of the law basically says that *machines*
>> can not be used to make phone calls for marketing purposes. If the
>> telemarketers can't use auto-diallers to bug people, that will cut
>> telemarketer's profits dramatically, and put a lot of telemarketers out
>> of business.
>
>Well, it's not *illegal* then -- is it? Machines haven't been calling my
>home -- real people have!
Actually, a lot of TM firms use what is called a predictive dialer. The person
picks up, sometimes.
S Hendricks
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 23:06:22 -0600, Lmart...@linknet.net (Leonard Martin)
wrote:
>In article <6b7gd9$2dn$1...@usenet47.supernews.com>, "Dave C."
><spamm...@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>
>> Why should he have to buy a pager? Telemarketing is illegal. That's
>> right, it's illegal. The federal law that virtually outlawed
>> telemarketing is not being *enforced* yet, because of a court challenge
>> by (believe it or not) a chimney sweep in Washington (Or Oregon?, I
>> don't remember) The law is PL 102-243 (I hope I got that right, from
>> memory.) The relevant part of the law basically says that *machines*
>> can not be used to make phone calls for marketing purposes. If the
>> telemarketers can't use auto-diallers to bug people, that will cut
>> telemarketer's profits dramatically, and put a lot of telemarketers out
>> of business. And this helpful law is being held up by a chimney sweep.
>> Doesn't that figure? I also sleep during the day. Fortunately, I can
>> turn my phone off, usually. But I believe telemarketing should be
>> *banned* outright. Because not everybody sleeps between 9PM and 9AM.
>> If you are calling somebody you do not know, it is safe to assume that
>> you *might* be waking them up, no matter what hours they work (or don't
>> work). And it's often VERY hard (if not impossible) to get back to
>> sleep once these scumbags have interrupted you. At times that I can't
>> turn my phone off, telemarketing has a dramatic negative impact on my
>> *health* because I don't get enough sleep. This is more than a minor
>> nuisance, it is dangerous! I've fallen asleep behind the wheel of my
>> automobile twice. No, nothing happened, I was lucky. The first time, I
>> woke up before I ran off the wrong side of the road, and managed to
>> recover in time. The second time, I rear-ended a van with no damage to
>> the van and only minor damage to my car. But it wasn't like I could
>> choose *not* to go to work, or pull off to the side of the road to sleep
>> a while. In this area, that would be suicide. It should be illegal to
>> call somebody for telemarketing purposes *period*, unless you have their
>> permission to call them. IMHO -Dave
>>
>> On hotmail.com, I am user "davec2". (email address altered to fool
>> spambots)
>>
>Then, if you're so troubled by this, think politically about it. Next time
>vote democratic. Do you think Republican-appointed judges will protect you
>from this or any other kind of commercial intrusion? Are they, or
>Repulican legislators, protecting you from increasing advertising to our
>kids in school, or dinned into your unwilling ear while you're on hold on
>some company's phone system, or plastered all over the venues of the
>sports events you look to for some kind of inspiration? Do you really want
>to live in a society where there commercial element or intrusion into
>EVERY SINGLE aspect of life is considered acceptable?
Could not agree more. I still remember the day Reagan took office and started
to cook the books. He added 3.25 million federal employees to the employment
calculations to make the disaster of economy his policies created look better
while also taking the rate of increase in mortgage rates out of the inflation
index.
The next actions taken dismantled MOST consumer protection in this country
starting with doing away with truth in advertising.
The de-regulation in BANKING alone cost the US TAXPAYERS close to $1 Trillion
dollars. ONE REGAN cohort invested $1,000 (yes one thousand) dollars in a
bankrupt Texas bank, and sold it for $73,000,000 about ten months later.
This is what happens when the criminals gain control of the government.
I won't mention the Iran-Contra affair, or the Cocaine operations.
S Hendricks
On 2 Feb 1998 01:12:54 GMT, stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Deborah Stevenson)
wrote:
>In <6b34nv$97b$1...@unx1.shsu.edu> std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell) writes:
>
>>So, when some jerk calls me at _my_ home to waster _my_ time,
>>I'm being an asshole to tell him to go to hell? I generally
>>just hang up unless they are being particularly obnoxious,
>>or unless I have the time to taunt them for a while and waste
>>their time.
>
>>But calling someone an asshole for being rude to a telemarketer
>>is like accusing someone who's shot a burgular in their home
>>of being a poor host.
>
>I'm afraid I can't agree. While I understand the impulse to be rude to a
>telemarketer, since there's technically no such thing as justified rudeness
>you simply end up with a rudeness draw (and your parallel falls apart
>since there are quicker ways of ending the wasting of your time than
>telling the telemarketer to go to hell). And I'd just as soon not be at the
>same level as a telemarketer anyway.
Quite true. Insults are childish. The person doing the telemarketing is often
a low paid, desperate person trying to survive in a world with little to no
opportunity. I had a customer once who ran 6 calling rooms. The telemarketers
were in general a pathetic lot. Most were working 2 to 4 jobs to try to survive
(this was in Florida, where no one gets a job for more than 10 to 20 hour a
week, and NEVER has any benefits).
Think what is is like to work 60-80 hour a week at Minimum WAGE. While I was
there, an attempt was made to lower the minimum wage to $3.25 an hour.
>This doesn't mean I have a lot of sympathy for telemarketers who complain
>about such responses--if you drop in unannounced, you have to take what
>you get. But it doesn't make them stellar responses.
In some states, it is illegal to make an unsolicited call. This is true of both
residential and FACSIMILE calls. Both are illegal in Maryland.
The common response "Where did you get this number" can be a prelude to a law
suit. It is no wonder how FEW telemarketer calls arrive here. Those that do,
invariably originate out of state where the law is unenforceable.
S Hendricks
On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 23:11:24 GMT, mi...@see.sig (Michael Williams) wrote:
>In article <34d5db0b...@news.pipeline.com>, decop...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>Exactly! Ripping into the caller is just killing the messenger. The
>>idea is to get them to stop calling and get off the list. That`s the
>>bottom line and being cruel to them will not accomplish this. People
>>will always respond positively when treated with respect and dignity.
>>Only when this fails and the calls continue, well..........
>
>But shouldn't this go both ways? Telemarketers (both the phone solicitors and
>the businesses that employ them) know that their calls annoy people, but they
>don't seem to care. So by indiscriminately calling people to sell them
>things, they are not showing respect or dignity towards those they are
>bothering.
Don't blame the worker, blame the businesses who operate this way.
Telemarketing is gradually being regulated. MANY telemarketing operations are
criminal in intent, so they obviously don't care if they annoy. They don't
annoy those with CID.
>I'm not saying that I support being cruel to telemarketers--although in fact I
>do--I'm just saying that they're not showing respect or dignity toward people
>by making marketing calls when they are fully aware that such calls annoy
>others. They simply don't appear to care.
Actually I DO blame the GOVERNMENT for not making nationwide regulation to
control telemarketing. There is no reason the BOCs and RBOCs should not flag
people who will accept TM calls and those who won't. Then they could sell their
listings.
S Hendricks
On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 01:40:28 GMT, nhz...@exis.net.NO.SPAM.WANTED (ZÉRö) wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 23:11:24 GMT, mi...@see.sig (Michael Williams)
>wrote:
>
>>But shouldn't this go both ways? Telemarketers (both the phone solicitors and
>>the businesses that employ them) know that their calls annoy people, but they
>>don't seem to care. So by indiscriminately calling people to sell them
>>things, they are not showing respect or dignity towards those they are
>>bothering.
>
>It's worse than annoying. I work on the mid shift 1/3 of the time and
>when I sleep in the daytime it's absolutely awful. I can't sleep! I
>can't turn off the phone because sometimes my wife needs me to find
>some info for her, so I suffer from sleep deprivation during mids.
I had the same problem, for a while. Turn off the phone, get a pager.
S Hendricks
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 22:58:56 -0600, Lmart...@linknet.net (Leonard Martin)
wrote:
>In article <34D738...@here.com>, Loan Arranger <yan...@here.com> wrote:
>
>> ZÉRö wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > It's worse than annoying. I work on the mid shift 1/3 of the time and
>> > when I sleep in the daytime it's absolutely awful. I can't sleep! I
>> > can't turn off the phone because sometimes my wife needs me to find
>> > some info for her, so I suffer from sleep deprivation during mids.
>> > ZÉRö
>> > Remove "no." and ".spam" from email to reply.
>>
>> Why not get a pager and turn off your phone while you sleep? I'm not
>> saying this as an excuse for the telemarketers, but it seems like a
>> cheap solution to your " wife calling/sleep " problem.
>
>
>And why would you prefer to recommend expensive strategems to this man
>than admit that the telemarketing industry is a pain in the ass and
>behaving badly? Is it perhaps because if you took the latter step you'd
>have to admit that our society is going downhill--losing one after another
>social rule of civility in the grip of an increasing commercial frenzy?
It isn't so much commercial crazy, and lack of basic morality. The technology
is still relatively new, and the social aspects are not fully worked out.
Telemarketing exist because it is still considered profitable. Eventually this
will cease, not because of legislation, but because the minimum wage will kill
it.
When people can get decent jobs, they won't work in the sweat shops that are
calling rooms. A few more regulations, will kill TM.
S Hendricks
On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 20:52:54 -0500, Captain <fasc@-spamthis-expno.com> wrote:
>Michael Williams wrote:
>>
>> In article <34d5db0b...@news.pipeline.com>, decop...@pipeline.com wrote:
>> >Exactly! Ripping into the caller is just killing the messenger. The
>> >idea is to get them to stop calling and get off the list. That`s the
>> >bottom line and being cruel to them will not accomplish this. People
>> >will always respond positively when treated with respect and dignity.
>> >Only when this fails and the calls continue, well..........
>>
>> But shouldn't this go both ways? Telemarketers (both the phone solicitors and
>> the businesses that employ them) know that their calls annoy people, but they
>> don't seem to care.
>
>They don't seem to care because they don't care. They are
>only concerned about the number of positive responses and
>if its 2%, then they are perfectly willing to annoy the other
>98%. As long as the 2% provides enough return, they are
>satisfied.
Of that 98%, most with CID are not being annoyed because they don't answer. AS
CID increases, it continues to reduce the effectiveness of TM. When the return
rate equals the cost at the new higher minimum wage, TM stops. So increasingly,
more and more expensive items must be sold. So increasingly only pre-qualified
RECEPTIVE callers are going to be targeted. Which means having CID may well
stop TM.
S Hendricks
On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 13:12:27 GMT, decop...@pipeline.com (decophile) wrote:
>>>I'm not saying that I support being cruel to telemarketers--although in fact I
>>>do--I'm just saying that they're not showing respect or dignity toward people
>>>by making marketing calls when they are fully aware that such calls annoy
>>>others. They simply don't appear to care.
>
>
>I still contend that if you`re serious about stopping the calls, then
>ripping into these people is just a quick fix, it won`t get you off
>their list and that`s the bottom line, right? Remember, that list
>"will" be passed on.
Sorry, you are wrong. I HAVE telemarketed. When you sit at the console and
make 200 calls a day, all you care about is finding the 1-2% who will listen.
The constant rejection is expected, as is rudeness and profanity from the
barbarians who are called. The telemarketer considers the rude response in the
same manner as those who object to being annoyed, as barbarian.
>All I`m saying is that the people hired to do telemarketing,
>regardless of how extensively they`re coached on how to handle any
>response, are in fact just people, and that can work in your favor if
>you handle it right.
True, if you simply say you are not interested, politely most will politely hang
up. If you responsed as an ignorant barbarian, with profantiy and abuse, don't
be surprised if you don't receive the same. Few TM would care either way.
>Look at it this way. Waking up every morning to a job that requires
>you to piss people off who then in turn heap every kind of berserk
>freak-out and rabid insult at you, is a job very few people are
>comfortable with. The monotony alone of reading that pitch over and
>over must be overwhelming not to mention that the number of positive
>hits they get are very few and very far between.
Obviously you have never done TM. Insults are few. Not many people are as
barbaric as that. Besides, it is expected to an extent. The TM is actually
perversely pleased to be an annoyance, since it is clear that person won't buy
anyway, so it is pleasing to be an irritant. Same with car sales.
You also apparently haven't heard much telemarketing. It is ONLY novices who
read their script monotonously. When I TM, it is NOT monotonous. In fact, I am
VERY entertaining. Of course I do make probably 10 times the money of one whose
primary job is classical TM. I use TM as PART of my prospecting. Almost ALL
businesses do NOW.
>Cutting into their pitch, addressing them by name, acknowledging that
>they must be exhausted and bored to death doing that job can sometimes
>be enough to snap them out of "sales pitch zombie mode" and see you as
>a person and not just another number/another pitch.
You are just helping the TM to get through. Anyone who is burned out, shouldn't
be on the phone anyway.
>Then politely
>state that any help they can provide in getting you off the list would
>be most appreciated. Then thank her/him by name. You may have been the
>only civil voice they`ve heard all day and they just might do it if
>they can. It really doen`t take anymore time than a good rant. Of
>course, there`s no quick way to tell weather or not they did it, but
>you stand a better chance than the alternative......and I know that
>doesn`t work.
Usually this won't work. The replacement will get the same list. These people
generally have no control whatever. I'll show you a calling room in Florida if
you like. I will be there in June for a short time. If you knew the absolute
HELL that life in the SW Florida can be, you may appreciate why some people TM
for a while.
>For me anyway, I have noticed that over the past year of doing it this
>way (Along with making sure I get on no more list) the number of calls
>have dropped from almost one or two a day at times, to just a few a
>week. So I know I`m getting off some list. The ones who do continue to
>call back are the ones responsible for "that" list ending up in the
>hands of the new callers. I know very well who they are and they get
>no mercy from me.
Don't flatter yourself too much. The minimum wage has done more to curtail TM
than anything else. The TM calling rooms can exist ONLY in areas like SW
Florida, where the resident vote 98% Republican and have created ther Republican
ideal of an economy. There is NO worker protection whatever.
The average NEW Florida resident, lasts about 2 years before returnning home.
Detroit, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia all look good after trying to make a
living in Florida. The Telemarketing call rooms that provide so little can exist
ONLY in places like Florida, which have "right to work" laws and NO state or
FEDERAL enforcement of worker protection laws.
Imagine being FORCED to work overtime, for the same rate! Imagine being forced
to STAND 12 hours a day, with NO rest. Imagine being unable to receive work for
more than 10 hour a week. All this is the REPUBLICAN ideal of how to treat
people. This is the REALITY of the top 3 highest contributing ZIP CODE to the
Republican Party. That is SW Florida.. Naples and Marco Island.
Did I mention they tried to lower the minimum wage to $3.25? Did I mention the
local TALK (meaning garbage) RADIO station which broadcasts Limbaugh and LOCAL
extremists constantly claims that RETAIL employees at Coastland Mall all receive
$10 an hour and more (when they were pleading for housing allowances so they
could live closer than 50 miles away from work) when they AVERAGED $5.50 and
hour but mostly were paid $4.25, the minimum wage.
>In any case, it`s a pain in the butt and I`m truly tired of them and
>spammers and just sales people in general. In a society where much of
>everything is self service anyway, I don`t see a need for sales people
>of any kind, anymore. All we need is a central information center like
>some supermarkets have.
You just defined the job of the modern sales person, to provide information. It
hasn't changed. Consumers are getting tired of the abuses heaped on them by
those who are using immoral tactics in unethical ways.
>When I have a question, I need someone who`s stationed in one place. I
>don`t want them following me around and I don`t want to search the
>entire store for them. But most importantly, if I want it, I`ll get it
>and there`s nothing that anyone can say that will sway me one way or
>another when my mind`s made up. I think most people are this way.
You won't find this anymore. There is NO product education in RETAIL any
longer. Sears and others pioneered the ideas of the Cash/Wrap ( a misnomer
since they don't wrap). The idea of service, which you expressed, is considered
too expensive. ONLY NORDSTROM, to my knowledge provides any service (in this
area).
A cash/wrap philosophy allows a company to use employees with a minimum of skill
and intelligience. Since Americans exist in huge quantities with nearly NIL
education, this allows the use of otherwise useless people. We have an
entertainment oriented society. It produces morons who can hardly think or
functions. Ever see the register in MacDonalds?
>Not to stray too far off the subject, anyone remember the Monty Python
>skit about the woman answering a knock at her door by a man claiming
>to be a burglar wanting only to come in and ransack her house? She
>refuses to let him in for fear he might really be an encyclpedia
>salesman just posing as a burglar.
>It just came to mind.
Actually, this country Electing Ronald Reagan was almost precisely that.
Deborah Stevenson
In <34dc3ef5...@news.mindspring.com> mobiu...@mindspring.com (S
Hendricks) writes:
>You also apparently haven't heard much telemarketing. It is ONLY novices who
>read their script monotonously. When I TM, it is NOT monotonous.
Hands up, *anybody* on this group who's heard a non-monotonous
telemarketing pitch.
I've yet to hear a telemarketing TM that was less monotonous than a
transcendental meditation TM. Not that I care, as it's just a question
of how quickly one can break in to acquire company name, caller name, and
confirmation of placement on the don't call list.
In fact, I am
>VERY entertaining. Of course I do make probably 10 times the money of one whose
>primary job is classical TM. I use TM as PART of my prospecting. Almost ALL
>businesses do NOW.
Support that statistic, please. There's not a business I deal with
that initiates phone contact.
>You won't find this anymore. There is NO product education in RETAIL any
>longer. Sears and others pioneered the ideas of the Cash/Wrap ( a misnomer
>since they don't wrap). The idea of service, which you expressed, is considered
>too expensive. ONLY NORDSTROM, to my knowledge provides any service (in this
>area).
Nonsense. There are plenty of other companies in various levels of
marketing that believe in customer service. Nordstrom's "I don't care
where you bought it, you can return it here" may be unique, but I shop
plenty of their competitors who similarly subscribe to the general
notion that a satisfied and informed customer is a returning customer.
They know their merchandise, they'll find out more if they don't, and
they'll accept responsibility if they were wrong. While it's by no means
an across-the-board phenomenon, I can think of a couple of different
fields where this is, IME, the case.
What I think is happening is a more distinct striation in the market(s).
Some companies are opting for success at the high end of customer
service; others are making (or trying to make) their bucks through bulk,
low-service discount. I think Lands' End is particularly interesting in
its managing to sort of cover both ends--it's got the high-level customer
service, but it can achieve a discount effect through the outlet stores
(which don't lose much on customer service, as far as I can tell) while
avoiding getting saddled with the results of their liberal return policy.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Eric O
My cell phone came with caller ID and it's nice to know who is trying
to reach me so I can decide if I'm available for them at that
particular moment. It's nice but that's not what has me posting.
I just read a couple dozen postings under this subject waiting for
someone, anyone to bring up my primary beef with the way caller ID is
not being used.
You can *NOT* block your number from being sent to an 800 # yet I
still have yet to see very many companies taking advantage of this
info who can make life easier for us.
You cable company should already know who you are
(and your account number) if you call with a question.
This should hold true with the DMV, post office, software vendors
you've registered with, and any other business of any size that you
occasionally transact with.
Why should I take the time to give account numbers and other info when
the technology is already available to speed things up.
I did the telemarketing thing for about five minutes.
After making two or three calls (none sucessful) I realized that
if I was on the other end I'd hang up too.
I still can't believe that anyone can look in the mirror after a
day of hassling people. But then others make money stealing cars,
selling drugs to kids, or killing people for that matter.
I don't see the world through rose colored glasses, but I think what
comes around, goes around.
I never buy from people who approach me. Not online, over the phone,
or on the street. If I need something I can usually find it at a
reasonable price in a matter of minutes without much effort.
Steven M. Scharf
unid...@mindspring.com wrote in message
<34de32ff...@news.mindspring.com>...
>What are you talking about? When I had cable, they didn't have an 800/888
>number they had a local number - so how could they take advantage of ANI?
>What if you call from a phone other than your own; from your work place, a
>friends home, a pay phone?????
Cable companies use ANI for Pay per View. You must call from home.
Amex used to answer their phones, Hello Mr. X, having determined who was
calling before they answered the phone and already having the cardholder's
account information on the screen. It was disconcerting to callers so now
even
though they have the information they don't use it in that way any more.
>You have to also realize that while the technology is available it is
>something that is an additional cost feature, in addition to the charge for
>the 800/888 call the party has to also have to acquire the equipment to
>utilize the feature and pay the additional charges for the feature - why
>should they add to their cost of ding business to acquire something that
>the calling party can give to them at no additional cost????
See above.
Lech K. Lesiak
On 7 Feb 1998, Deborah Stevenson wrote:
> Hands up, *anybody* on this group who's heard a non-monotonous
> telemarketing pitch.
My hand is up. I ended up on a sucker list and keep getting calls to tell
me I just won a car or some large amount of cash. All I have to do to get
it is to send some amount of money to pay the sales tax, or as a
registration fee. These guys are definitely not monotonous. If I have
the time, I try to drag the conversation out for as long as I can to keep
them on the phone and waste their time.
Cheers,
Lech
yankee
>
> In some states, it is illegal to make an unsolicited call. This is true of both
> residential and FACSIMILE calls. Both are illegal in Maryland.
>
I think it's a little more involved than just saying an "insolicited
call". I hope you meant "telemarketing call". Anything else would be
ridiculous. It's illegal to call someone without getting their
permission first? What do you do, write them a letter and ask?
What would telephone directory be used for then? Light bedtime reading?
scottdh
Your friends and family all have something to hide. Get new ones.