Sean wrote:

SM: Oh man... ha... I can't belive this... I just came across... a web page... trying to stop people ..hah.. from... heh... selling them things over... heh... the phone....by...charging them cash... heh... to run their name around to every company in the world....oh man,

PCI: Believe it, and go see a doctor about that 'hah'ing and 'heh'ing.
I think telemarketers get it from throat lice passed among junk caller when they spit on each other for bothering people.

SM: Throat lice? never heard of that one...Sure that is a medical possibility?
I am inclined NOT to belive that one. ;)

PCI: It's a joke... but it's based on the fact that many junk callers have head lice. It's passed around telemarketing employees by shared headsets.

SM: What are you thinking?

PCI: I'm thinking that all people, including you and your family members, have a right to be left alone in their own homes, free of intrusions from those they seek to avoid. Don't you agree?

SM: Sure. Don't pick up the phone if you don't want to be bothered.
It's really simple.

PCI: The point of my question is contained in the phrase; -
        "... free of intrusions FROM THOSE THEY SEEK TO AVOID."
Next time you don't want to respond to an argument, just say "no comment".

SM: Telemarketing, which is my profession, employes THOUSANDS of people,
and generates a KILLER amount of money for companies.

PCI: There are hundreds of thousands of people selling drugs and stealing cars.
Does the number of people doing something wrongful, make it right?

SM: Ok, comparing telemarketing vs. drugs and crime dosn't make much sense.
Think before you write ;)

PCI: There are acts which are crimes, but yet are not wrongful
         - (e.g. selling marijuana to glaucoma sufferers, or chemo-therapy patients)
        There are acts which are not crimes, but yet are wrongful
          - (e.g. making political contributions in an effort to 'purchase' legislative ends)

My question was; "Does the number of people doing something wrongful make it right?"
You seem to have a habit of responding to issues that aren't raised.

SM: It's called business, which is what this country is about.

PCI: It's called privacy, which is what direct marketers steal from the citizens of this country.

SM: Refer to last note.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE A CALL, DO NOT ANSWER THE PHONE.
It is not rocket science. I can draw up a simple diagram for you, if you wish.

PCI: You really don't seem to get the point.
It's not the call, its who the call is from.
It's not the ringing phone, its why the phone is rung.
Don't answer the phone when it could (and likely will) be a friend or relative?
What you are suggesting is that, at any given moment, we must WANT to take a call.
You really DON'T get it, do you?

SM: I mean, how hard is it?

PCI: Got me!  Squeeze it yourself. I suppose lots of guys have that problem when they become telemarketers... repeatedly getting it tangled in telephone cords.

SM: LOL ;) I nearly pissed my pants on that one, ace ;)
You passed 3ed grade, right?

PCI: Yes, it was a joke... (I thought it rather funny).
As far as our respective educational levels...
you don't want to get into a pissing match with me on that issue.

SM: Someone sends you junk mail? THROW it away!

PCI: Actually, there is a way to make tons of money from junk mail. You see, as a result of the direct marketing industry's need to treat people like nothing more than potential sources of revenue, rather than individuals, the industry leaves itself open to being 're-educated' concerning its refusal to respect privacy rights its.

The fact is, I always warn the direct marketer first, whether junk mailer or junk caller. I advise them not to bother me, and that if they do, they will suffer financially, and I will lawfully benefit. They never listen, until it's too late.

SM: Ah. And I'm sure you donate that money to charity, or help those poor souls who are forever whacked-out due to a phone call with that money, right? You didn't enjoy a penny of it. I know.

PCI: Read my comment above comment!
            "I advise them not to bother me, and that if they do,
             they  will suffer financially, and I will lawfully benefit."
I tell them, and I told you that I will benefit.
So... what's your point?

SM: A telemarketer calls you? HANG UP?

PCI: Can't do it.
Regardless of what junk caller believes he's pitching; in the final analysis, most telemarketers are unwittingly and freely offering me their assets. Why would I hang up on someone so kind.

SM: You are seriousally so freaking 90's, screaming lawsuit at the drop of a hat....

PCI: Not at all.
Of the $10,300 that Private Citizen members collected this month, all of it was received without legal action. Indeed, no lawsuits were even filed. Telemarketers freely gave the money as a recognition of their wrongful act or acceptance of our offer.

SM: That was the most USELESS peice of information EVER. Of the millions of people that are about to file a law suit, how many actually get brought to court???? 95%-99% are settled out of court.

PCI: Your statement was:
       "You are seriously so freaking 90's, screaming lawsuit at the drop of a hat...."
Unlike you, I respond to the instant argument presented. So I ask again... what's your point?

SM: Oh man. You think of anything but money? Yuppie scum..

PCI: Yuppie scum??? Ouch! Money is a universal language. When a junk calling firm (for example) violates a law, the loss off money discourages further violations. BTW: I don't think of the matter as one based on taking a junk caller's money, I consider the issue to be based on our right of privacy and how to effectuate it. You capitalist pig... (Sorry, I lost my head.)

SM: Stuff like this is whats wrong with the legal system,

PCI: I'll tell you what's wrong with our legal system (or at least one aspect of it), It's the direct marketing industry's habit of giving huge campaign contributions (including millions of dollars from single telemarketing firms) to legislators. These legislators then block or gut laws that would require respect for your privacy.

As a result, there is no 'real' legally mandated respect for privacy in America. This circumstance leads telemarketers to think they can tele-annoy folks with impunity... which in turn, forces us to take their tele-money. If we were given a choice; privacy or money, I and the vast majority of our members will choose privacy.

SM: Yeah, it's whacked out, isin't it? But, this is america, the same country that enjoys killing middle-eastern civilians due to one messed up leader.

PCI: Yep, whacked out is a good description. But I don't think Americans "enjoy" (as you put it) killing innocents. If fact, I believe (in the case of Iraq) Americans would prefer not doing so.

SM: Buy a answering machine. You just got privacy.

PCI: Privacy is a right! A right is something you don't have to pay for.
Your suggestion implies that privacy is a privilege, available to those who can afford it.

SM: I was sickened to your reference of SUING someone for CALLING THEM!

PCI: No... lawsuits only follow failed settlement negotiations (90% of which are successful).
And it's not for CALLING, it's for accepting an offer or violating a law BY calling.

SM: Most companies, including my own, do NOT violate ANY laws.

PCI: In my experience, I have found that most telemarketing firms making sales solicitations to residences, do indeed violate the law. As for your company, unless you tell me who it is, I cannot comment further.

SM: I am as legit as it gets.  you think I enjoy bothering someone during dinner? No.

PCI: But you do it anyway, don't you?

SM: Has this society really become so damn weak that we have to try to get money for a 5 second disturbence?

PCI: Is the duration of a wrongful act the criteria by which it should be judged?
Let's say a peeping tom drills a hole in the wall of the girls high school shower.
He stands there, leering at 36 unsuspecting school girls, for 5 seconds each.
Is that less wrongful than leering at one girl for 3 minutes?
It's the wrongful act, not its duration.

SM: Again, apples and oranges my friend...Two totally different things. Stick to the subject.

PCI: My point was;
        "It's the wrongful act, not its duration."
Your response was an election to ignore my point. As for your 'apples and oranges' analogy: both peeping toms and telemarketers invade privacy - and privacy is the subject.

But your comment misses the point. Lord Halifax said; "A horse thief is not hung for stealing horses, but so that horses are not stolen". Private citizens have a right to be left alone. Telemarketers commonly / wrongfully abridge that right because they think they've got nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. We help the telemarketing industry 'rethink' their philosophy.

SM: Whoopie.

PCI: I'm glad you understand the concept.

SM: I'm saddened.

PCI: Ahhh... don't feel bad. As a telemarketer invading the privacy of others, you sadden, annoy and disturb hundreds of folks every day you sit in your cubicle, with your thing tangled in that telephone cord.

SM: I actually have a nice spacious desk, no cubicle for me ;) I have never once harassed anyone, purposally bothered or saddened ANYONE. Think about it, EVERY action you take can sadden or upset or disturb someone? Me sending this e-mail might cause a server to go over it's monthy transfer limits imposed by their ISP, and cause them to pay extra cash, forcing them
to go out of business. You know, you never know?

PCI: Yet you empirically know, by the practice of your own profession, that the most likely result of your solicitation call will be to disturb a person's right to peacefully enjoy his privacy, without a collateral benefit.

SM: Telemarketing has paid 1/2 of my way through college, toward a computer programming degree.

PCI: Great! You'll soon have a real job, and stop your intrusive ways.

SM: I have a real job, it's not imaginary ;) And for the intrusive part, see last line.

PCI: O-kay, you have a real job... but it's one which people would prefer you not inflict on them.

SM: I am VERY happy doing something other then flip burgers to make my way through these next few years.

PCI: If you were flipping burgers, you'd tell me who you worked for.
But as a telemarketer, I am sure you will refuse to name your employer.
Who is it?
It's a matter of privacy... right?

SM: Heh :) As A matter of fact, I have no problem with naming my employer. Problem is, I'm sure you'd get some big kick out of attempeting something nasty and unfounded to them...And no, it's not a matter of privacy ;) I really could care less. If I knew your motivs better, and all that, I would have no problem with telling you.

PCI: Ahhh, now what could I do to your employer?

SM: Anyway, till next time, I remain:
___________________________________________
Sean
(####@idea-inc.com)
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE: http://www.cauce.org
___________________________________________

PCI: From your signature, I note that you're against spam... Hmmmm, a telemarketer that defends his profession while fighting spammers. Cute! Why don't you contact the president of CAUSE (Ray Everitt). Ask him about Private Citizen and me. He'll tell you about my motives. Then ask him what he thinks about what you do for a living.
--
Bob Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc.
http://private-citizen.com