When hanging up is the best revenge

Boston Herald ^ | 10/01/03 | A Boston Herald editorial

[Salo]

No, what I meant was: telespammers can only call you if you sign up for a do-call list. Otherwise, do-not-call is implied. This targets the telespammers market better and saves us the hassle of signing up not to be called.

[TontoKowalski]

Yeah, let's make a law that impacts every business in America for the benefit of your brother-in-law.

First, wouldn't it BENEFIT business not to waste time calling people who have stated flat out that they won't buy any product over the phone and only want to be left alone?

Second, I do firmly believe that the rights of the individual trump the "rights" of salespersons (as a class).

Third, telemarketers have brought this on themselves. They have done everything possible to undermine market solutions, like that Zap thing. Does anybody believe that the industry solution of "please place me on your do not call list" idea has been a success?

Fourth, your original post indicated that you thought everyone who objected were crybabies, and hadn't they heard of turning the phone off or caller-id. I gave you an excellent example of an average citizen, probably not that different from a million others, for whom neither of those solutions was workable.

If the DNC list is too burdensome on business, let's have a compromise. Every businessperson calling my home should provide his/her HOME PHONE NUMBER immediately. In a business relationship, I think it's essential that a mutual bond be established. If the business can call you at home, why can't you do likewise?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Sorry, I misunderstood. Sounds like a good idea.