Replies

OK you don't think that's a good basis. That's your right, but it doesn't make you right. It's the basis for all laws about people's right to tell telemarketers to stop bothering them.

Now you're continuing with your version of what the law would be based on, which is nothing more than a strawman for irradicating all these laws. The law is based on theft of service. PERIOD.

We already gave them No Solicitor signs with caller ID, their answer was to find a way to stunt caller ID to let them through. We errected another No Solicitor sign with telezapper, AGAIN they decided the best response was to find a way around it. Of course before all that the federal government forced them to give us a way to get off their list, their answer was to make it as difficult as possible to do so. Now the fed is making a central list that they all have to follow. If they'd have followed the intent of the law in the first place the fed wouldn't have stepped in, but they didn't.

Another strawman, just because we have too many federal laws doesn't mean all new federal laws are bad. That same poor logic would apply equally to all federal law including those against murder, kidnap and fraud. Stop erecting strawmen, stop obfuscating the issue, deal with the FACTS. The FACTS are really quite simple and show quite plainly that the telemarketers over stepped the line repeatedly, they begged for a smackdown and now they're upset that it hurt.

Way to deliberately misinterpret what I said. It's getting quite clear that just like your telemarketing buddies you are incapable of acting in good faith. There are plenty of second contact methods of doing sales calls, those are cold calls.

More strawmen, and exceptionally pathetic ones at that.

No I will not agree to disagree. That would imply your position has a modicum of truth in it. You are wrong, across the board. You are apologizing for an abusive industry that brought it's own troubles on itself and deserves what is happening to it. The DNC list is a clearly justified application of federal government power based on well tested laws applying to theft of service by unwanted intrussions. You may walk away, but there is no agreeing to disagree with those who's desperate need to obfuscate and errect strawmen clearly demonstrates that even they know they are wrong.

The law is based on theft of service. PERIOD.

No, the law is really based on making people feel comfortable. There is no "theft of service," even if the law says so. The service offered to you by the phone company is an "open line" that anyone can call. If you paid the phone company for a "closed line" limited to only those callers you approved, and telemarketers somehow managed to circumvent the block and reach you, THEN I can understand the "theft of service." But, an open line is an open line.

And "caller ID" is not the same as a "No Solicitors" sign. Caller ID is similar to an answering machine; it simply gives you a tool for screening your calls. Neither is the "telezapper" a "No Solicitors" sign; it merely messes with the telemarketing company's computer system.

I'm not building "strawmen". You're so clouded by your outrage at obnoxious telemarketers (who I have already said annoy me to no end, too) that I have to present other scenarios that fall along the same lines just to try to make you understand the principle behind what I'm saying.

And, actually, the only reason I wanted to walk away is that I'm a busy person, too, and it doesn't look like you're ever going to understand. And, in the end, the deal is done, anyway.