Slashdot Mirror
Oops, Dave Barry Does It Again
agdv writes "After the success of his first article providing the phone number of the American Teleservices Association, and the ensuing reaction by said organization, columnist Dave Barry attacks again, providing the ATA's new phone number. Read all about it! (the number is 317-816-9336, long distance charges may apply)."
I like the idea of calling the association, but I am more enthusiastic about contacting the heads of the association at home, during dinner. It would be a real shame if someone were to dig up those folks numbers....
Oy, my html skillz are pitiful... www.ataconnect.org/
This "idea" is really not that great second time around.
Firstly, it's Sunday in US. Chances are no one is there. By tomorrow, it'll drop off the first page (although I realize Barry has his followers)
Secondly, it's not a toll-free number. You have to pay long-distance charges, hence there is no actual damage done to the association people might want to annoy.
Can we let it go? The laws are fucked up. How about publishing the numbers of those congressmen who voted against DNC list? I don't see what this campaign is going to accomplish. Go after the gatekeeper.
Instead of having a opt-out list there should be an Opt-in list. The people who want to be called will enlist giving their explicit permission to telemarketers. It would clear the confusion and make it easy for everyone. Most of the people do not want to be called but they may not enlist in opt-out list and may end up getting calls. The opt-in list will solve the problem. To be fair, the telemarketers will be given one chance to call everyone and ask their permission to call in the future. They will get their answer right then and there from the horse's mouth ;-)
Btw, Kudos to Dave!!!
- Jalil Vaidya
The telemarketers are trying, no matter what the consequences are to others, to defend their right to make calls.
The politicians are trying, no matter what the consequences are to others, to react to popular demand (not a terrible thing) but to defend their right to make calls. (The "unconstitutional" argument is that charities, churches, and politicians can still call, but businesses can't.)
But we can be part of the problem, too. Not in demanding to eat dinner, or work from home, uninterrupted; that's fair. On the other hand, when we take out our frustration on the underpaid guys on the other end of the line -- instead of politely saying, "please put me on your company's do-not-call list, have a nice day" -- then we, too, are pursuing our agendas no matter what the consequences are to others.
And the next time you get a call, be as angry as you want at the caller's employer, but remember: you're only one layoff and twelve months of unemployment away from the person calling you.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
What a pathetic argument.
First off, you use the term 'customers'. Telemarketers do not get abused by people who are 'customers'. Telemarketers get abused by people who are sick to fucking death of being called for the seventeenth time IN ONE EVENING for the same old survey, holiday, book of vouchers, comms service or other special deals. They are annoying. They are mosquitos.
If someone employed criminals to break my windows, I would feel just as happy beating their head against the pavement as I would their 'bosses' and the people in your town are no different, they're bringing in money for annoying people, for doing to people what those people DON'T WANT DONE TO THEM.
Those people who phone me are mosquitos, and I will play with them how I like until they respect my simple wish for a quiet evening at home.
Absolutely.
However, in my case I simply have a burning desire to let the American Telemarketers Association know exactly what I think of it's business practices. ;-)
No prank there.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
If they could catch you at your most inconvenient time, they would. In fact, if they could tell without having to call that you were not interested, they would not make the call.
Isn't that what the do-not-call list is made for? They could tell beforehand that you don't want them to call. But they insist they want to call you despite that and rule the list illegal. So, you're plainly wrong here.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Of course not, that's why they call between 5pm and 7pm on weekdays and Saturday instead of say.. between 9am and 5pm during "normal" business hours.
If they could catch you at your most inconvenient time, they would.
Don't you mean convenient time? They already catch us at our most inconvenient time. For me that's between the hours of 9:01am and 9am.
In fact, if they could tell without having to call that you were not interested, they would not make the call.
I have an idea: What if we setup a national do-not-call list and everyone that doesn't want to receive telemarketing would put their phone number on it. What? They didn't like that idea? It doesn't sound like they're interested in my convenience anymore, just their profits.
When you pick up the phone to call ATA, what you are doing is harassment. You have nothing to sell them.
So you feel that the only Constitutionally protected form of speech should be commercial speech where the caller is trying to sell something? God forbid that a huge number of people call one of the telemarketing organizations and voice their opinion.
While my father was dying of cancer and I was awaiting "the call", I got a call from some jackass wanting to sell me vinyl replacement windows. When I was working night-shift testing satellites, I got multiple calls during the day from telemarketers who woke me up and kept me from getting adequate sleep. You think that these calls are valid forms of free speech which should exist unregulated but that me calling a business to tell them what I think of their lobbying efforts does not deserve those same protections?
I personally know an individual (a dentist) who has successfully used telemarketing. He employs one woman who works from home cold-calling people to get their teeth cleaned. Telemarketing has been the most successful method of getting new patients that he has ever tried. Additionally, the woman doing the job benefits from well paying at-home employment.
How is that any different than saying you know a successful penis enlargement pill salesman who employs people to send spam? I don't give a rat's ass about how successful he's been. It's like arguing that laws against embezzling are wrong because you know a successful embezzler.
I am not opposed to a Do Not Call list. I am, however, very much opposed to the legislation of said list.
So you think it's fine for people to register for the list but you don't think that telemarketers should be legally obliged to refrain from calling people on the list. Then, by extension, you believe that some handicapped or elderly person who has trouble and/or pain getting to the phone should be forced to receive telemarketing calls from any firm that wants to ignore the list. You think that people working night shift should have telemarketing calls wake them up in the middle of their sleep cycles. You believe that parents should have their toddlers woken up by telemarketing calls. You think that people should have to choose between taking the phone off of the hook and maybe missing an emergency telephone call or leaving it on the hook and being woken up, interrupted, or inconvenienced by some telemarketer.
You've got a screwed up set of priorities.
Sorry, but having a commercial agenda does not magically legitimize this practice. Yes, it is legal to make an unsolicited call to try to sell your products, just as it is EQUALLY legal to make an unsolicited call about, well, nothing. Only when an unwanted call is repeatedly made does this behavior fall into the realm of harassment.
So what if I just want to call them with the intention of inconveniencing them? Does the fact that they unintentionally inconvenience me set us apart? No.
.... is that there's nothing in it for me. Obvious Barry struck a deep nerve when he published the telemarketing firm's number. I think its the "something for nothing" nerve.
Why should I give you five minutes of my time on the telephone when you have nothing to offer me? I watch TV ads because I am being served "free" television shows. I look at pop-up ads (well, not really) because I have to get through them to get to the web content / porn that I am looking for. Billboards at least try and entertain or titillate me.
Telemarketing does nothing for me. Maybe if when they called I got 50 cents off my my phone bill each month I wouldn't get so ticked. In Europe, when you buy some sim cards for your cell phone, you can call a special code that will give you free local minutes on your cell, but first you have to listen to a 45 second commercial. I'm happy to listen to their little ad for the free minutes.
Surely these companies can come up with incentives for people to listen to their damn spiels. Every other form of advertising does.
I like that; sounds like something Douglas Adams might have come up with :-)
They've been calling me for years, therefore I'd like to think that we have a business relationship.
That's good enough for me to call them and say hi and sell them some of my programming services.
Hang on, put some perspective here.
Nazi war criminals shoot people, torture people, rape people, and do so with no regard for human dignity.
Telemarketers just call you on the phone.
Get some sense into you
Here's an even smarter way of going about it than last time:
PRETEND TO BE INTERESTED IN THEIR SERVICES
when you call them This time. Anyone who does this will leave a much longer message for them, tie up their line longer, and tie up the person(s) filtering through all the 'potential' customers. Last time they got called to death... this time they'll get called to death, slashdotted (hopefully for a Long time), and Long after they take their new number down... their staff will be busy having to listen to you if you pretend to be interested.
-Rich
There are ways to attack, and there are ways kill.
Just drop acid, already, and invent something better... or quit your whining.
You have fallen into the same logical falsehood as so many people do. An analogy is an argumentative tool to draw parallels for one specific aspect, not a complete comparison at all levels. The analogy was that "I was just doing my job" is not an excuse for doing something bad. That the level of "badness" is different is irrelevant to the argument. The analogy is valid for the purpose it was used.
When you pick up the phone to call ATA, what you are doing is harassment.
Only if you're harassing them. If you call them up and give them perfectly valid feedback, what are they going to do? "Uhhh.. yes, your honor. The defendant called us to let us know how much he hates it when he gets calls from us that he didn't ask for and has asked to have stopped on several occasions. He's a criminal!".
In fact, if they could tell without having to call that you were not interested, they would not make the call.
THAT is probably one of the biggest loads of horseshit I've seen posted on Slashdot in awhile. Part of selling cold is overcoming people's objections to something they hadn't actively sought before. They know that the overwhelming majority of people want nothing to do with the product - it's why they didn't seek it out to begin with. If they knew ahead of time who did and who didn't want the product, the only thing they would do is start ranking people by the likelihood of a purchase so they could target the victims better.
Don't give me shit about them just doing their jobs. My grandmother is 86 years old and she's always yelling at these bastards because they keep calling and trying to sell her shit and she keeps telling them to leave her alone. She just wants to be left alone, she doesn't need her windows replaced because she doesn't own a house. She doesn't need a new vaccuum cleaner. I don't care if they're "just doing their jobs" - they're doing it at her and my great inconvenience, and that's NOT acceptable.
I don't CARE if 2 million telemarketers get booted to the street. They almost all get paid shit anyway and are shoveled pretty much the same benefits as McDonalds' burger-flippers. They'll just fill other service positions that pay the same paltry amount but don't irritate people. If 2 million telemarketers lose their jobs, it's BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY DOESN'T HAVE A CUSTOMER BASE. Imagine that... an industry being allowed to die off because nobody wants to patronize it. What a novel idea in this country - fair competition. The only reason telemarketers have been allowed to survive this long is because they don't NEED to establish a customer base by providing a quality product or service, they just need to keep beating random people over the head and forcing almost everyone to be the customer base.
Long live the DNC list! The only complaints I have are that I can't sign up to avoid slimy politicians, guilt-inducing "charities", and religious nutjobs.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
I called Rocca and asked him to hold for an important message. But its his home phone where his family lives so I felt like I sunk to his level.
That's right. Ever read the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"-bit in the Declaration of Independence?
Sure! Just remember that you have a right to the pursuit, you don't have a right to the happiness!
I've got ne word for you.
:)
"Collect"
The real purpose of calling the number is to annoy the telemarketers. Calling collect makes it even more annoying and it saves you from getting charged for the call.
1. The ethics of this:
Hmmm. The golden rule . . . do unto others. I don't think that applies much to a marketing association, but I guess I'd apply it to the notion of calling individuals at home.
2. It's who you do business with:
Interestingly enough, I have two phone companies.
One is Cox Communications. Within a couple of days of getting that phone number, I was beseiged with telemarketers and it has never let up.
I've also got a number from Sprint. I've had that number for a couple of years. Not a single telemarketing call.
3. A rant
So I call Qwest to get a home phone number. They generously offer to charge me only $3 or $4 per month to NOT publish my phone number.
Okay.
Can you say ex-tor-tion?
I come to your store and generously offer to charge you only $500 per month to NOT set your store on fire.
It's a great business plan: pay me to not do something. Sort of like a SCO license, I guess.
"When I grow up, I'll be stable."
You haven't sunk to his level because you aren't really selling something. What you are doing is expressing your opinion, in an ironic way, that how they conduct business is wrong.
>> ( long distance charges may apply). Not if you live in that area code.
may : Function: verbal auxiliary
1 a : have the ability to
1 b : have permission to : be free to (used nearly interchangeably with 'can'): used to indicate possibility or probability (sometimes used interchangeably with can; sometimes used where 'might' would be expected)
The outrageous behavior you describe seems very similar to the thinking of spammers.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I used to feel bad about giving telemarketers a hard time, but then I came to a realization: if we make their lives a living hell, they won't want to work as telemarketers anymore. If we are nice to them, they will enjoy (or at least tolerate) their jobs, and they will keep doing what they are doing. When their job becomes a source of major stress in their lives, they will hopefully end up quitting and then there will be one less telemarketer in the world.
Sure, it's kinda mean to fuck with them, but it's part of their job and it comes with the territory. It's up to them to determine if they are getting paid enough to deal with shit from angry people all day. And judging by the high turnover rate at call centers and telemarketing companies, my guess is that they definitely don't make enough money to deal with us.
So feel free to abuse telemarketers, they've been doing it to us for years.
For those of us in the United States may wish to remember that MANY CELL PHONES HAVE FREE LONG DISTANCE. Not that I would suggest we ab^h^huse that little detail.
What's the difference between an orange?
"Don't waste my state's resources with your harassment, please."
The money to pay members of Congress, their staff and to run an office in DC and one in your district comes from federal coffers. I'm paying for your member of Cogress just as much as you are.
Also, being a member of the United States Congress means that their actions affect people thoughout the country as a whole (hence the name "United States Congress"), so all citizens have just as much right to contact your member of Congress as you do. Whether your member of Congress actually listens to out-of-state interests is something else, and something you should perhaps keep in mind in Nobember '04.
If you have property and have posted a no trespassing sign, uninvited/expected people are expected to stay off of your property. To me, the no call list is the same thing. A landline is an access point to your personal space, so being on a do not call list is the same as posting a no trespassing sign. This has nothing to do with free speach, it is about an individuals right to be left alone on his on property.
In fact, for any argument involving claims of "I was just doing my job" (or following orders), the Nazis are the most famous and clear demonstration that such a claim is not a valid excuse, and therefore the Nazi analogy is probably the best one regardless of the emotional attachments.
There seems to be two extreme falsehoods when using Nazis, those who use it as an insult without demonstrating any equivalence for analogy, and those who assume that any comparison to Nazis is invalid on its face because it envokes emotions. Both are falsehoods. Legitimate analogies using Nazis do exist, including this one.
That's nice. Imagine how pleased I'd be if, say, one million business owners with your sense of ethics called me, and each one crossed me off their list when they found out it was a residential number. Opt-out works, after all!
Actually, most of the drug dealers I've met are much nicer, more considerate, and decent people than telemarketers. By all means, I'd rathar we quit putting drug dealers in jail, putting telemarketers there instead.
Consider that dealers either wait for YOU to phone or page THEM; or if they're working at a party, they might offer you their wares once, and if you say "no" they leave you alone the rest of the night.
I've never had a drug dealer interrupt me at dinner, trying to sell me coke, E, K, or whatever the trendy drug-of-the-moment is.
If I say no when I am offered drugs, they don't follow me around, pestering me, trying desperately to convince me to buy. They TAKE my "no" for an answer and leave me alone.
No drug dealer has EVER woken me up from a hangover at 8am on a saturday morning.
Drug dealers don't seek out my phone number and trade it amongst other dealers for them to cold-call me.
In general, the claims that drug dealers make about what they're selling tend to be closer to the truth than the claims of telemarketers.
And if I tell a drug dealer I'm not intrested in buying from him; he does not sue, claiming a constitutional right to sell me pills.
None of the above is true about telemarketers. So, all things considered, I WOULD much rathar see telemarketers in jail than drug dealers; as the telemarketers are FAR more of an annoying pestulance.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...