(RSHaas) wrote in message ...
It was a federal case in Oklahoma. He ruled the FTC overstepped its
authority. There is another federal case coming up in Denver.
The ban may be reworked in some fashion and reappear in a different form.
Of course, I oppose the ban because I live with a phone in my ear. I don't
want to pay $11,000 just because I called some snot-nosed yuppie ******* and
his snotty bitch of a wife. Most telemarketers I've known work these jobs part
time to make ends meet.
What kind of asshole of a human being would actually initiate a $11,000 fine
that would destroy a family of modest circumstances.. over a mere commercial
phone call?

RSHaas
_____________________________
Oh, that was you that called.

My clients in the telemarketing industry (mortgage refinancing in
particular) should be happy to learn of the court ruling. It was
expected.

KidDon

On 24 Sep 2003 20:29:22 -0500, Kenneth Sloan
wrote:

"StanB" writes:

"Fifiela" wrote in message
...
How does one say NO to a phone call during dinner?

1. Don't answer phone
2. Screen calls
3. Hang up if telemarketer
4. Don't buy anything

If you do answer, ask them to take you off the calling list.

I prefer to be creative. If I have the time, I like to see how long I
can prolong the call without actually providing any information.

Have you ever listened to the CD called "Revenge on the
Telemarketers"? It's by a standup comic who did improv on 'em when
they called and recorded it.

http://www.tommabe.com/

"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...

Not me. I'm on the mark with the health insurance I sell.

Unfortunately, the huge majority of telemarketers are ruining it for guys
like
you.

FINALLY, affordable health insurance!! Believe that I got some waterfront
property for you. The margin on Blue Cross/Blue Shield is 3%. You really
thing that 20%commission insurance that sells for less is gonna be there
when you need it?

StanB

The margin on Blue Cross/Blue Shield is 3%. You really
thing that 20%commission insurance that sells for less is gonna be there
when you need it?

StanB


I have just one participation left in a 501c9 trust.
This could be your lucky day.

RSHaas wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. There is another federal case coming up in Denver.
Sooner or later the ban will come under 1st amendment scrutiny.
Over many years and many cases the Supreme Court has steadfastly ruled that
truthfull and non-misleading commercial speech is the same as any other speech
and therefore has 1st amendment protection.

But does that protection supersede the rights of citizens
who have explicitly stated that they do no want to receive
such calls? I don't think it does.

We'll see.

KidDon wrote:

My clients in the telemarketing industry (mortgage refinancing in
particular) should be happy to learn of the court ruling. It was
expected.

I certainly hope your clients aren't associated with the
company that called me recently on five consecutive days,
trying to get me to refinance my mortgage. Despite my
firm refusals, these jerks kept on calling me. Not only
was this extremely annoying, but I do not even have a mortgage!

"FINALLY, affordable health insurance!! Believe that I got some waterfront
property for you. The margin on Blue Cross/Blue Shield is 3%. You really
thing that 20%commission insurance that sells for less is gonna be there
when you need it? (StanB)
=============
Yes, if the applicant hasn't lied on the application and there are no pre ex
issues.
RSHaas

(RSHaas) wrote in message ...
"Don't I have a right not to be forced to hear your sales pitch? (Richard
Peterson)
==============
You certainly have the right to hang up, block calls, use available
technology to screen or divert calls, and so on.


The problem is that telemarketers use strategies to defeat call
screening devices. Why should a phone consumer have to engage in a
telecommunications technology "arms race"? If telemarketers had
integrity, they would not endeavor to defeat the protective devices.


The question is.. can you enlist the aid of the government to prevent me
from calling?

But the government is not preventing you from calling. They are
regulating telemarketers so that they will not call those households
who have expressly indicated that they want to opt out of receiving
sales pitches.

I see it as no different than the government regulating WHEN a
telemarketer can call. Surely, it is no infringement on 1st amendment
rights to forbid commercial telephone solicitations at 4:00 AM



One problem I see in the telemarketing ban is that it focuses on
one form of commercial speech. You turn on the TV and commercials come into
your home using your personal TV and your electric power.

But YOU decide when to turn on your TV. For your analogy to make
sense, the TV would have to turn on by itself, and start blaring ads.

A TV has limited utility as a communication device, whereas the
main purpose of a phone is to provide an individual to make and
receive phone calls from specific (known acquaintences) individuals.



So ban that, huh?
That means the networks have to send you only programming but not the
commercials because you are a spoiled brat that can't be troubled. And the
newspapers. You don't like all the ads. Ban them, too. Your edition of the
newspaper much come scrubbed clean of ads.

Your arguments are pathetic. An individual chooses to expose
himself to ads, by opening up the newspaper. The ads in the newspaper
are not going to suddenly fly into your dining room, and interrupt
your supper.

All that so you can live in an open
capitalist society that is trimmed in such a way that it fits your personal
perfect way.. regardless of the consequences beyond your comfort zone.
The smart thing the telemarketers should do is ignore the ban.. set off 60
million complaints that would flood the court system and tie it up for decades
as it tried to process those cases.

Great, form a conspiracy to break the law. You wouldn't have
access to your phone line for long....

RSHaas

"RSHaas" wrote in message
...
"Doesn't the fine actually hit the rich sleazebag who owns the
telemarketing
company -- not the poor fish who work for it?" (mikemurray)
==============
Mostly I work for myself, so I'd be the sleazebag. Imagine me...
fined
$11,000 for offering someone health insurance.

Actually, you would be fined for offering someone health insurance, but only
1) after they had registered that didn't want to hear from you, and 2) you
didn't bother to check or ignored them.

David

--
without the block

"RSHaas" wrote in message
...
"In return, I get something I like from radio,TV and the newspapers. What
am I
getting from you ? What do you and your ilk offer in trade?"
(mikemurray)
============
From me you'd learn about the cheapest health insurance costs in Florida.
RSHaas

Whether I want to or not.


--
without the block