Replies

I figured you as a telemarketer-lover would not see the comma, which created two not-necessarily mutually exclusive "types" of people.

These included non-government types, and freedom loving types, which distinguished your allowance that only government types could decide what was harrassment (in which, BTW, you simultaneouly took out your entire argument against having government invoking the Do Not Call list as a form of harassment prevention, by saying that other forms of harassment could be protected by government).

I hope you see the hyper-hypocrisy in your claim "That is harassment, I think local government can reasonably judge and enforce those [other] cases [of harassment]."

Your trouble is in defining harassment. Harassment is in the judgement of the harassed, tempered by the collective judgement of society.

Plenty of people don't like your harassment. The collective judgement of society - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people - hates your feakin' guts.

Harassment is in the judgement of the harassed, tempered by the collective judgement of society.

Interesting that the "harassed" and the "society" are one and the same. Many people don't like calls from their mothers-in-law. I prefer tempering based on facts rather than the feelings of the same mob. One fact is that you signed up for so-called "harassment". That alone discredits the claim.