Slashdot Mirror


How to Handle Political Telemarketing?

TheOtherChimeraTwin writes "Slashdot has touched on telemarketing in the past. The No Call lists work pretty well for me except for a flood of political calls. They guys use automated dialers with recorded messages and use bogus caller id information, calling back multiple times. Political surveys are done by real people, but they hang up on me if I stray from answering their questions. Does anyone have a solution better than just hanging up on these slime? I'd just vote for their opponent, but sometimes I'm getting called by both sides. The distraction of these calls is annoying and the problem is only going to get worse."

275 comments

  1. Do what I did by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Join the libertarian party ... they don't have enough money to telemarket.

    1. Re:Do what I did by vitamine73 · · Score: 1

      Actually, in one election I just told all of them that if they kept calling I was *definetly* going to vote against them... never heard from them again, lived happily ever after and so on...

    2. Re:Do what I did by wolvesofthenight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Voting for a third party is actually a very good option. If everyone that is whining about the current political duopoly would stop whining and vote for someone else then the duopoly would fall apart. People normally counter argue that you are throwing your vote away because they 3rd party will never win. I disagree with this because: - There are currently several independent congressman. - While they might not win this race more people who voted mainstream might vote for them next time if they are noticed in this race. People will take you a lot more seriously if you got 15% last election instead of 1.5%. - A large number of people don't because they don't like either of the 2 main parties. If they would get out and vote for 3rd parties then we would see a lot more 3rd parties winning. Most importantly, don't get that you have more than one vote! There are many issues on a single ballot, so you can vote mainstream for president and 3rd party for other offices. Last election I felt that the presidential race was very close and that there was a huge difference between Bush & Kerry. I voted for one of them even though I felt that one of the other candidates would do a better job. However, a number of other offices I often voted 3rd party because there was not nearly as much at stake. If more people in my state will start doing this then we can get a 3rd (and hopefully a 4th) party going locally. After that we can work toward another party for president.

      --
      -WolvesOfTheNight
    3. Re:Do what I did by paulthomas · · Score: 1

      This is true. The LP doesn't get Federal money* like the Republicans and Democrats do. I would hope that if they were ever offered even a fraction of the amount given to the main parties that they would turn it down on principle. But then, they're politicians, too.

      * read: your money, for those in the US.

    4. Re:Do what I did by xappax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know someone who actually got a job doing telemarketing for the Republican party - and took it as her personal mission to get as many hang-ups as possible. Sometimes she would use a really loud annoying voice, sometimes she'd act sickeningly friendly and patronizing, sometimes she'd talk non-stop over the other person as though she was a recording, and if someone was annoyed enough to say "Don't call me again, or I'm voting for the other guy!", she'd make sure they ended up on the "follow up soon" list.

      She never got fired - I guess the GOP isn't particularly strict about overseeing their most obnoxious "campaigners". But I bet she persuaded far more people not to vote Republican than than any Democrat telemarketer could have!

    5. Re:Do what I did by morleron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. I've joined the Libertarians not only because they don't do calls of this sort, but also because I firmly believe that it's time to get government off our backs. However, that's kind of beside the point here.

      A good friend of mine turns these calls into what he terms the "How Long can I String Them Along Game" in which the goal is to see how long you can keep the idiot making the call on the line. The technique works like this:

      Caller: Hi, I'm calling in regard to Senator Joe Congresscritter's campaign. Do you have a few moments to discuss the very important issues that Senator Congresscritter believes need to be addressed by the government?

      Callee: Sure. I'd love to discuss those issues. Can you hold on for a minute, you caught me preparing dinner and I've got to get something out of the oven?

      Caller: OK.

      Callee: (goes off and does things he wants for 3 to 5 minutes then returns) Sorry, now where were we? Oh, right, you want to talk about politics.

      Caller: Yes, Senator Congresscritter is very concerned about the future of this great nation of ours and wants you to know that he's worried about the future of Social Security. In fact, he has put together a plan for...

      Callee: Oh, just a moment...my cat needs to go out (goes away and does other things for 3 to 5 minutes...comes back) Now, about Social Security...

      This process is repeated for however long it takes for the telelmarketing idiot to realize that he's being played. Mark's record is somewhere around an hour now, though I think that was with a commercial telemarketer, for whom this game is also appropriate. Don't get annoyed...get even.

      Just my $.02,
      Ron

      --
      Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
    6. Re:Do what I did by magictiger · · Score: 1

      The downside to doing something like this is that you can get someone fired for just doing their job to the best of their ability, especially if it's a commercial callcenter where the reps are scored on the number of calls they make every hour and how many of those are "successful" calls. Personally, I really don't think that matters too much for the political stuff, but I've never done that kind of work, so I really can't say.

    7. Re:Do what I did by jtev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is why the first rule of the call center rep is "Don't waste your time, make the contact waste theirs." If somone goes off for 5 minutes, you'd only wait for 2 minutes, then hang up. Posibly less if you've got a low talk time contract like polical mesages. It's not like the people in the call center even care if you vote for the canidate that they are calling on behalf of anyway.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    8. Re:Do what I did by sco08y · · Score: 1

      People will take you a lot more seriously if you got 15% last election instead of 1.5%.

      And those parties, almost invariably, have a one-issue platform that never appeals to more than a few percent of people.

      The exception being parties like Perot's party which was built around Ross Perot and fell apart once he was discredited.

    9. Re:Do what I did by nutrock69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      > The downside to doing something like this is that you can get someone fired...

      These are Telemarketers who consider themselves exceptions to the various "Do-Not-Call" laws. Where's the downside?

    10. Re:Do what I did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There is one independent congressman, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and he is running for Senate this year. The race to succeed him, at present time, is more or less a dead heat between the Democrat, Peter Welch, and the Republican, Martha Rainville.

      There is also, at present time, one independent senator, Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Jeffords was a member of the Republican Party, but he switched to become an independent very early in the George W. Bush presidency. He caucuses with the Democrats now, and has done so since he became an independent, which made the Democrats the majority party in the Senate until the Class of 2002 was inaugurated, at which time the Republicans took back over.

      Jeffords will be replaced by another independent this year in Bernie Sanders. Sanders, like his predecessor, will caucus with the Democrats. Sanders is a self-identified socialist, but Jeffords was always just a little too "what can you do for me?" for the Republicans. A lot of times Jeffords' leaving the GOP is attributed to his being too liberal for the party. That's not so; he was not that much more liberal than his northeastern colleagues Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, or Lincoln Chafee. At the time that the Democrats were looking for someone to flip sides so that the Democrats could achieve a majority, they targeted two senators most heavily: Jeffords and John McCain of Arizona. The Republicans targeted two Democrats for the same purpose: Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

      If Lieberman should lose his primary against Ned Lamont, and if Lieberman should subsequently run in the general election and win under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" ticket, he presumably would serve as an independent in the 110th Congress. He would, like Sanders and Jeffords before him, caucus with the Democrats. In that, the best case scenario as of January 2007, here's your percentage of independents in the U.S. Congress:

      House of Representatives: 0%
      U.S. Senate: 2%

      Sorry, but there are not several independent congressmen. Any potentially successful third party in the United States, with the sole exception of the American Independent Party (the anti-illegal immigration party whose figurehead is Jim Gilchrist of California), has not yet been founded.

    11. Re:Do what I did by mi · · Score: 1

      I can't find a link right now, but I remember reading about Libertarian candidates nation-wide rejecting government funding for their campaigns...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Do what I did by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know someone who actually got a job doing telemarketing for the Republican party - and took it as her personal mission to get as many hang-ups as possible.

      I dropped into the bookstore the other day, and went over to the history section. I recently finished the Pulitzer winning "Washington's Crossing" (highly recommended, by the way), and wanted to see if there were anything else by the same author. Right next to history was the current affairs section.

      What I saw there was frightening. Prominently displayed were row after row of books with titles like "100 People who are Ruining America". It wasn't just the right, it was the left as well: book after book whose theme was that you should think about and act in a juvenile manner towards people who disagree with you.

      It made me think of something I often tell my children: You can't avoid getting angry sometimes, but beware: anger can make you stupid.

      It isn't that there weren't books like this ten years ago. It isn't that attitudes like this didn't exist ten years ago. It's just that ten years ago this kind of childishness didn't drown out the other forms of political discourse. It used to be the politics of the lunatic fringe. Now it looks like the lunatic fringe is the loudest voice out there.

      What's frightening about this attitude is where this logic leads: "Those people" are runining the country. You cannot live with them. Therefore it is us or them: both of us cannot survive. Mark my words: if the trend to political childishness is not checked, it will end in violence.

      Acts like the one described gets no respect from me, liberal as I am and convinced the policies of the Republican are bad for our country. Either they are too much, or too little. You can only justify them if you are fighting evil, but if you are fighting evil, the fight deserves more from you than snatching a little puerile self-satisfaction.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Do what I did by Digit+Machine · · Score: 1

      This company does the telemarketing for the national republican congressional committee. http://www.infocision.com/ I worked there for a while and it was the worst job I have ever had. Every day I left there feeling a little bit dumber. Occasionally I would speak in a foreign sounding accent to make people think the republicans outsourced their marketing, that seemed to work well.

    14. Re:Do what I did by xappax · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean for the story to be an endorsement of dirty campaign tricks - I tend to agree that open, honest, and inclusive discussion and debate of ideas is the ideal that we should seek in society. I saw it as a sort of meta-politicking that illustrated a lot of what was wrong with the political scene in the US. In a society where candidates stand to gain most of their support by buying billboards and TV spots showing nothing but their smiling mug and trying to convince you they're your friend, and where the government policies set for the next term are largely determined by whose telemarketers called the most people during dinner, is it such a stretch to think that the focus on such totally non-political bullshit could be manipulated? I would claim that in fact, it's happening all the time and has been the political status quo for decades.

      To put it another way, I think the "vulnerability" is that the american public is so fixated on politics as some sort of popularity contest/hero worship that they're more concerned about which candidate annoys them personally and which one "seems like a good guy" than what sort of policies will result from them taking power.

      The "exploit" is just someone using this dismal situation to advance their particular agenda. Yeah, it's despicable, but I think it's naive to believe that any political party or movement can have any traction or influence in this country without using this "exploit" to one degree or another. I like the idea of ethical purity, and fighting "evil" with pure "good" and all, but I think the Democratic party would be the first to argue that you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette - that's part of what I hate so much about them.

    15. Re:Do what I did by hey! · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of ethical purity, and fighting "evil" with pure "good" and all, but I think the Democratic party would be the first to argue that you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette - that's part of what I hate so much about them

      Well, let me share with you an anecodote that might make my position clearer.

      Years ago, when the Broadway musical "Le Miz" was a huge hit, my wife and I splurged and went to see it. As I watched the scene where the students, realizing that the people aren't going to rise to support them, continue to fight to the death on the barricades. I was apalled. Not because people were represented as dying for what they believe in, but because dying with futility was being represented as being romantic and heroic, whereas it struck me as being plain stupid. I'd rather do what Lenin did, lie low, plot, and wait for the moment when a tiny push can topple the whole structure in the direction I want it to fall.

      That is exploiting the system's weakness.

      I'm not talking about ethical purity or lack thereof. I'm talking about effective agency in the world. The problem is this: while winning elections is instrumental to advancing one's political agenda, it is not the same thing. So while the politics of resentment may help defeat enemies, it doesn't give you the support you need to advance your policies, as the Republicans have found. It has given them position from which to make marginal advances on their agenda, but they are as unable to push sweeping conservative reform (except possibly through the courts). To some degree, this is due to the wise construction of our political system. But the reality is that public support for the reigning ideology, even when enthusisastic and broad, is never very deep and always has at least invisible fractures. The problem with the politics of resentment is the particular kind of stupidity it brings, a witches brew of hubris, blindness and self-indulgence, which has been on prominent display with the Republican's recent ethical difficulties.

      The situations is worse for the Democrats. I don't think the politics of resentment does anything at all for them, except among their hard core base, and possibly at certain tipping points when the country is ready to throw the other bums out. However, liberalism is about trying new solutions to age old problems; this doesn't work with an resentful, disillusioned electorate. That's why a liberal can't mock conservatives without mocking his fellow liberals as well. He has to move his audience past rejecting the other side.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:Do what I did by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      We're already doing this on a large scale.. you may have heard of Ann Coulter.

      -DNC

    17. Re:Do what I did by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      I hate the expression "Both Sides" that was used in the submission. It implies the assumption that there are only two sides.

      If "both" sides piss you off, vote for someone else, like the Libertarian, or the Green, or the Socialist, or...

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    18. Re:Do what I did by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Libertarianism isn't a one-issue platform, not at all. Neither is the green platform, though it may seem like it to the uninitiated (greens are somewhat socialist, in addition to the environmentalist stuff).

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    19. Re:Do what I did by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul is more Libertarian than he is Republican. A name is just a name. Votes matter.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    20. Re:Do what I did by charleste · · Score: 1

      We prefer the term "Greenies" - from a time before they invented those dog treats.

    21. Re:Do what I did by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 1

      I beg your pardon; I didn't mean to slight the other political parties. In any case, I'd hate to have my vote influenced in any direction by something as trivial as a phone call. I just want the calls to stop.

    22. Re:Do what I did by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      No offence was taken; and maybe I worded that a tad strongly, and for that, I apologise. I like the thinking of R. Buckminster Fuller that (very roughly paraphrased) the words you use should reflect your mindset and that words that express obsolete or incorrect ideas should not be used.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    23. Re:Do what I did by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Tell the telemarketer that they just forfeited your vote because you hate phone spam. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  2. Answer their questions honestly because they are by vandelais · · Score: 1

    as important to Democracy as Diebold, Bush v. Gore, and voting for the dead guy.

    Tell them you intend to vote for CowboyNeal!

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  3. How about... by Bin_jammin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    trying to track down who's actually calling you, and getting a restraining order against them. Or you can create a web site about it and expose whomever may be responsible, odds are they won't take too kindly to the exposure.

    1. Re:How about... by kingkade · · Score: 1

      or threaten to track em down and rip their genitals off.

    2. Re:How about... by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Or say, "I'm not interested, please take me off your list."

      But hey, everyone needs to feel important.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    3. Re:How about... by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      That works soooo well when they use recorded messages to call you with. That is illegal for everyone else to do, but politicians are allowed to. OH and they spoof the caller id. Good luck with your little idea of "take me off your list"

      I think if someone else did that, it would probably be a felony, Run for office and you get to break as many laws as you want.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    4. Re:How about... by generic-man · · Score: 1

      I was taught in fake law school that all telemarketers must honor requests to remove me from their lists. I don't care if there's a man or a mecanotron on the other end of the line; if they do not honor my request to remove me, I will take them to fake court.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    5. Re:How about... by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      You only get "taken off the list" for one year. Federal law allows non-profits (and for-profits) to call everyone at most once a year.

    6. Re:How about... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      A restraining order doesn't hurt them. Instead, contact your local TV station and ask them to investigate political telemarkers spoofing their caller ID. Some channels love investigating and airing this sort of stuff, especially if they support the opposing party. For instance, the CBS affiliate out of Hartford, Connecticut has an investigative team that deals with this sort of stuff -- stuff that's not important enough to normally make the news, but stuff that's interesting.

  4. well... by zxnos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    just lie to them. but seriously there is a big problem. if you ignore or lie to political telemarketers dont complain when politicians do whacky things by relying on polling data.

    --
    always mosh clockwise
    1. Re:well... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I just tell them i'm too drink to talk politics then start asking about thier religion and why they don't see the light like i did.

      This will get your name off the list pretty quick. It doesn't matter what religion you tell them although picking a competiter like lutherin verses catholic or muslim would be a good way to get thier goat. I used to act like i was favoring a certain religion just to trash it when they proclaimed it to gain my attention.

    2. Re:well... by Marcion · · Score: 1

      Or even better, have you heard about an operating system called Linux? I give all door to door salesmen an Ubuntu CD.

  5. Get a cell phone, ditch the landline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I took the plunge a couple of months ago, and I have yet to get one spam phone call since. Cell phone prices are comparable to landline phone prices and come with lots of nifty features (like free long-distance calling).

    1. Re:Get a cell phone, ditch the landline by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      Two years ago hurricane Isabel hit and we had no power for 9 days. Much of the city was without power longer. I know a few people that were thankful for cell phones, until they realized they had no place to charge them, since work and home had no power. People would idle their cars in their driveways to charge their cells or to make calls. By some miracle, the only system we could count on through that was the landline. I've also had times where I could not get a signal on the cell in my own home -- and I live in the state capital, not 10 minutes from the capital building itself!

      I can understand wanting to ditch a landline, but after surviving one disaster, I'm staying prepared for disasters and emergencies.

    2. Re:Get a cell phone, ditch the landline by gijoel · · Score: 1

      Honestly I have people ringing me on my mobile trying to sell me time share holidays and phone deals. I don't think ditching the mobile is going to help you for all that long.

    3. Re:Get a cell phone, ditch the landline by SgtXaos · · Score: 1

      I have a good friend who has ditched his landline, since he and his wife each have cell phones. He cannot understand why I maintain my landline and pay the extra $25 a month. Like you, when we had no power for a week after Isabel, I still had communications and 911 access. If I relied on VOIP, I would have been sunk. If I relied on cell service I would also have been sunk, since the local tower ran out of power or was damaged or something and for whatever reason, my cell would not work from home (it is only marginal from home during normal conditions).

      Another story - I was talking to my brother two days ago; he was using his cell phone (free weekend long distance). The call just dropped. Turns out his handset had comitted suicide or something. Luckily he had a landline to call the cell company to troubleshoot the problem.

      There is just something re-assuring about having a backup that is pretty much always up and running. The traditional telephone system is very robust and they maintain operation in emergencies, because they always have been a critical communications path. I don't know that the cellular companies have that same mindset yet.

      --
      -- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
    4. Re:Get a cell phone, ditch the landline by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      I'm the opposite.
      I pay $75 a month for 2 landlines, 1 business and 1 personal. I get no solicitations on the personal line and few solicitations on the business line and if the call isn't business related, they're promptly disconnected.
      I paid $80 a month for (at the time) the only family plan a cell carrier had for 4 years (VoiceStream that became T-mobile).

      I cancelled my mobile after I realized that after 4 years, I paid out $4000 and only used $2000 worth of service - and most of that was just to burn minutes. Where I live, there is only 1 provider that has a tower so I'm stuck with that provider.
      I'm always at home so people can always get me and If I go into town, I carry my mobile. I pay $25 every three months to use it and never go over minutes.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
  6. The calls are the least of your problem by MarkusQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The calls are the least of your problems.

    In addition to making annoying phone calls, they are also bilking you (and every member of your household) out of tens of thousands of dollars (each) to pay for foreign entanglements (wars, giving weapons to loonies, etc.) to stroke their half baked dreams of empire, selling your rights to the highest corporate bidder, who pay them back with booze and hookers (at your expense of course) and lying to you every chance they get. Oh yeah, and spying on you, paying newscasters to lie to you (again, your tax dollars at work), letting their corporate masters override you and your doctor's decisions about your health care, and hundreds of other things.

    Plus that, they are being such jerks in the world at large that people you've never met hate you enough to kill you, just because they represent you.

    But if the phone calls are the straw that breaks your camel's back, so be it.

    --MarkusQ

    1. Re:The calls are the least of your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are also going along with these hair brained ideas because YOU elected them... I don't understand how people can be so anti politicians if you don't like them don't vote for them...

    2. Re:The calls are the least of your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth would you assume that they voted for whom ever they are complaining about?
      Simply complaining does not, in and of itself, assume an apathetic voting record.
      Unfortunately, in the US, we have a Winner-takes-all system; I didn't vote for most
      of the people around here that 'represent' my ideas, and I certainly won't stop
      bitching about their idiotic Repumocrat horsecrap.
      I think that the system stems from having only two real parties; this was fine
      when the country was established because most of the small communities would certainly
      have known the person who they were sending to congress. Now, not only do these people
      hardly represent the communities they serve (honestly, in my area, no one would be able
      to afford the $500.000,00 a day budget for a congressional race), they don't even bother
      to pretend! I did vote, & not for the person who one. You can stick it if you think
      people won't bitch about it afterwards

    3. Re:The calls are the least of your problem by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Hey, he didn't say it was Republicans calling him...

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    4. Re:The calls are the least of your problem by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Hey, he didn't say it was Republicans calling him...

      I never said he did. It might well be Joe "bought-and-paid-for" Lieberman. Or Hillary "screw defending the constitution I have to look tough and centrist even if it means selling out (and think of the children)" Clinton. Or Jane "I heart defense contractors" Harman. Or dozens of others.

      Republicans don't have a patent on selling us out, they just happen to be doing so more efficiently at the moment. If the inside the beltway, big donor fueled DLC Democrats could get their heads out of their polls I'm sure they could do just as well.

      Likewise, all the parties seem to have a smattering of honest, intelligent, hard working people who will stand up for what they believe in and do the job we sent them for (until somebody makes them an offer they can't refuse, or they die in a small plane crash).

      --MarkusQ

    5. Re:The calls are the least of your problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus that, they are being such jerks in the world at large that people you've never met hate you enough to kill you, just because they represent you.

      Don't kid yourself, that would be happening no matter what. Your stance is incredibly naive. Everything is not simple.

    6. Re:The calls are the least of your problem by MarkusQ · · Score: 1
      Don't kid yourself, that would be happening no matter what. Your stance is incredibly naive. Everything is not simple.
      Oh my, how to deconstruct this...there are so many places to start. Going for some low hanging fruit:
      • You claim that the exact same consequences would follow no matter what we did...in essence that cause and effect don't really mean anything. And then you claim that my stance is naive?
      • Granted that not everything is simple, that doesn't mean that nothing is simple. If there are two groups that hate each other and you arm them both, but prevent either from eliminating the other, they will both wind up hating you. If you approach someone weaker and pretend to be their friend in order to swipe their stuff, they will generally wind up hating you. If you tell people who are dying of something that you have a cure, and even tell them how to make it, but use force to prevent them from using the cure unless they pay you a sum which is far beyond their means, they will wind up hating you. And on, and on...

      --MarkusQ

    7. Re:The calls are the least of your problem by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      Oh my, how to deconstruct this...there are so many places to start. Going for some low hanging fruit (bullets make me look so cool):
      • You claim that his argument implies that cause and effect don't mean anything. This is not just a typical straw man argument, it's an obvious one.
      • He said "Everything is not simple"
      • You counter-argued "Granted that not everything is simple, that doesn't mean that nothing is simple". A slight, but serious, rephrasing. You are now arguing against your own words instead of his.
      • Granted "Everything is not simple", "not everything is simple" would be a true statement, but so would "nothing is simple". Hence it does, quite boldly, mean that your implication that this doesn't preclude things from being simple is false at best.
      • I'm not sure what the label for the logical fallacy of invoking and defeating a similar phrase is, but it's rather similar to equivocation. If there is not currently a term for this, I hereby propose the term "MarkusQism"

      You implied that you have a better argument than your attempts to attack his logic. I would love to see this high hanging fruit of which you speak.

      You make a great appeal to fear and appeal to emotion to support your causes because we all know how bad those evil republicans are! But this doesn't change his statement that something other than the actions of our politicians is causing the hate aimed at westerners and/or non-muslims. Your argument is weak and the fact that you constantly attempt to change the discussions on /. to republican vs. democrat arguments further reduces your credibility.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  7. lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I normally just make crap up.

    I want my flying car, a county wide monorail system, holoTV that bring hot girls into your living room like on Logans Run, domed cities and a discount on soylet green crumbs.

    And masturbation in public to be LEGAL.

    1. Re:lie by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      And masturbation in public to be LEGAL.

      You mean it isn't? Whoops...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A woman who is uncomfortable watching you masturbate... ...Shouldn't have sat next to you on the bus in the first place. -Oberon

    3. Re:lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the one I was thinking of.

      A woman who is uncomfortable watching you masturbate:

      a) Probably needs a little more time before she can cope with that sort of intimacy
      b) Is uptight and a waste of time
      c) Shouldn't have sat next to you on the bus in the first place

    4. Re:lie by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Wait, you mean you don't really want all that stuff? :(

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    5. Re:lie by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

      Sir, I'd like to thank you for expressing your desire for more Soylent Green. Many people are not aware of the benefits of eating Soylent Green: it has zero trans fat, comes in several attractive shades (have you tried Key Lime?), and is both recycled AND recyclable.

      but best of all, as we like to say...

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  8. Be Determined by cagle_.25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hi, this is Kimberly from the [Republican | Democratic] National Committee...

    Hi Kimberly, my wife and I don't make any donations whatsoever over the phone, and we don't answer poll questions either.

    Sure, I can understand that. We would like to send you a free brochure with our platform on it, but we need to have some level of commitment from you. Could I put you down for $25?

    (It turns out she actually can't understand what I said). I'm sorry. Like I said, we don't make contributions over the phone. Good luck in November.


    CLICK. BZZZ...

    ---

    For the record, any political contributions we make go to PACs. We figure that the money will be better distributed to the candidates that actually support our positions, than if we gave to the national parties.

    --
    Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    1. Re:Be Determined by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      I used to get rid of the political money grabbers really quick when I lived in the US. After they gave their little pitch I'd simply say: "I'd love to support you, is there a limit on what foreigners can donate?" Then watch them back track and leave as fast as possible! Of course since I am British it was true but I sure those of you who are US citizens can improvise!

      Don't try it in Canada though - I tried the "I'm British" when they came canvasing for votes and they never believe me that I don't get a vote so I always end up have to explain that since 1982 British subjects don't get to vote in Canadian elections (although bizarrely enough I would apparently still do jury duty if I lived in the Yukon!). At least I'll be well prepared for the civics test when I'm finally eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship!

    2. Re:Be Determined by clem.dickey · · Score: 1
      If they're live, same as before commercial solicitations were banned.

      Hi, this is Kimberly from the [Republican | Democratic] National Committee...

      "I'm sorry. but we are not allowed to respond telephone solicitations."

      Never explain further; don't get drawn into discussions about who does not allow you.

    3. Re:Be Determined by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      This works for me...

      "Screw off Neo-hitler cock sucking bitch!"

      Probably will not ever call back, ether. Sadly it may give innocent bystanders heart attacks, but... ask yourself, isn't it worth it?

    4. Re:Be Determined by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1
      but... ask yourself, isn't it worth it?
      Reply from self [127.0.0.1]: Nope.

      Actually, rage accomplishes surprisingly little. All of those people that you've stunned into silence are merely keeping their dissent to themselves and biding their time...

      For example, if I were addressed in that way and figured I had little to lose, I might very well turn your name over to a bunch of charitable organizations that are also not bound by do-not-call. Thus, you would get to deliver your line over and over and over...
      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    5. Re:Be Determined by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      If you worked in an outbound call center you'd be told to fuck off several times a day. You'd have to cuss pretty fierce to offend the poor bastard on the other end of the phone.

    6. Re:Be Determined by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it, the "drug addict from the middle of nowhere" plan maybe better. Goes a little like this...

      Caller: "Hello sir, would you mind taking a short survey ab-"
      You: "IT'S YOU!!! I know who you are! You are the aliens! Well listen here, you will never have me! NEVER!"
      Caller: "Excuse me, I think you may have missundersto-"
      You: "I know JUST FINE what you and your kin want! And you will never have it, hear me?!!???"
      *If they don't hang up, hang up*

    7. Re:Be Determined by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      +5 funny. :-)

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    8. Re:Be Determined by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 1

      Next call:

      Caller: "Hello sir, are you a registered vot-"
      You: "I KNOW YOU! You are an alien! ALIEN!! Edith! EDITH!! It's one of those ALIENS again. I know what you what you want with me! You are going to use your MIND CONTROL to force me to do unspeakable things to my wife. Edith! Brace yourself honey, it's about to happen AGAIN!"
      Caller: "Er, maybe this isn't a good-"
      You: "OH MY GOD HE HAS GOT MY BRAIN!"

  9. Turn-about is fair... by DSW-128 · · Score: 1

    Call the successful candidate at dinnertime to tell 'em to cover political campaigns/polls with the existing do-not-call lists.

    --
    This .sig is printed on 100% recycled electrons, but is best viewed using 100% fresh photons.
  10. An answering maching is your friend. by Maclir · · Score: 2, Informative

    If we get a call from a number we don't recognise, or is blocked from giving the caller id, we let the answering machine take it. If the person starts to leave a message, and we want to talk to them, we pick up. But telemarketers hang up as soon as the hear a machine.

    1. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by Drathos · · Score: 1

      I came home one day to find 27 new messages on my machine. All but one of them was "This was a political survey call. We will try again later."

      The other was some pediatrics office leaving a reminder message about an appointment for my kid. News to me. I wish people would tell me I had kids..

      --
      End of line..
    2. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      What I would absolutely love is to have an Asterisk server that used its "modem" as a connection to a land-line. (Finally! A good use for a WinModem!)

      When calling in, it would:
      - "Time-shift" by a second or two unless a receiver is picked up.
      - Timeshifting allows it to detect a fax and decode it into a TIFF, then deposit that TIFF on the filesystem or in an email inbox.
      - Timeshifting allows it to detect caller ID info and compare to a black/white list system.
      - For faxes, non-whitelist numbers are automatically disconnected.
      - For voice, only blacklisted numbers get auto-disconnection.
      - Record voice-mail/answering messages direct-to-disk as MP3 audio, tagging them with timestamp and caller ID data in the ID3 tags.

      When calling out, it would:
      - Detect local numbers and "911" and route it to the PSTN connection.
      - Detect long-distance numbers and route it through VoIP.
      - Allow "mobius faxing" against people you hate.

      This would solve problems with telemarketers much in the same way spam filtering keeps inboxes clean. Sure, it's not perfect. But it would be sooooooo cool to be able to mobius fax an outbound line from a telemarketer.

    3. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      So, you're a pompous dick?

      How does that fix the problem?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But telemarketers hang up as soon as the hear a machine.


      No, they don't. One bastard's automated phone spam machine filled up our voicemail. Didn't vote for him, but as you say, what can you do?

    5. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by ampmouse · · Score: 1

      I have a setup very simular to the one you describe.
      When a "telemarketer" (almost always an automated system) leaves their number on my voice-mail, I run a little shell script that makes sure there are plenty of copies of a particular text file in in a folder that just happens to be named /var/spool/asterisk/outgoing.
      At the moment, I just put them on hold when they answer, but I have been working on a much better system that uses Sphinx (Speech recognition) and Festival (Text to speech) to have some more "fun". The average answered call lenght is about 30 seconds just calling them and putting them on hold...

    6. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by Jarn_Firebrand · · Score: 1

      So you're a pompous dick?

      How is it being a pompous dick to avoid telemarketers and people who bother you?

    7. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

      but the damn autodialing robots do not.

      --
      All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
    8. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      For faxes, non-whitelist numbers are automatically disconnected.

      How dull. I would have the server auto-negotiate down to a very slow speed, and use lots of flow control. Though you may want to set it up so it only behaves this way during the night, otherwise you could be without a phone for a good chunk of the day.

    9. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      "You're a bastard, aren't you?"

      To which you reply: "In the flesh, on the run, and taking your lagers with me!"

    10. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Just one improvement to that list: use Ogg/Speex for recording messages. It records at a very good quality for speech at an extremely small file size. One of the biggest users of Speex? Microsoft with Xbox Live headset communication. Yes, it's so good that even Microsoft decided to use an open standard rather than developing their own.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    11. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      AIFF at 11kHz, mono, 16-bit with Intel 10:1 or IMA 8:1 compression (both types are lossless) would be better. That would come out to roughly 100kB per minute of audio.

      In fact, with that Intel 10:1 compression around, I never quite understood what the big deal was with MP3. It's still just ~10:1 compression (unless you destroy the sound quality, then it's about 15:1), but it's lossy. Now it's so common that all kinds of extra stuff handles it automatically and it makes more sense to use it (more devices work with it).

      As for "open standards", well, it doesn't get much more open than AIFF audio. It is, after all, the Audio Interchange File Format. It's quite well documented, and is widely supported.

    12. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You've got kids!

    13. Re:An answering maching is your friend. by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm just saying that you don't really need a lossless format for VoIP or related.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  11. well...Shurking one's duties. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This crowd may want to look up 'civic duty'. A responsable citizen doesn't start and end at the ballet box.

    1. Re:well...Shurking one's duties. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This crowd may want to look up 'civic duty'. A responsable citizen doesn't start and end at the ballet box.

        He's right, people who start and end at the ballet box are simply dancing around the issue.

  12. Tips by tonyr1988 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Unfortunately, political groups are exempt from the "Do Not Call" lists. I don't have a home phone, so I have the joy of not having to worry about any telemarketers. From various web sources, it looks like there's no real action you can take (legally) to proactively defend yourself. However, I've found two possible solutions:
    • When you do get a telephone solicitation, find out on whose behalf they are calling, ask that you be permanently removed from their calling list, and tell them that you are writing this information down. If they call back, demand to talk to a manager and complain and/or call the Consumer Protection Division of your local State Attorney General's office.
    • Consider products such as the Telezapper and these.
    1. Re:Tips by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1

      Check your /. link that you posted in your comment; the devices that it links to don't seem to be around anymore.

    2. Re:Tips by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      as a general tip on telemarketers grab a copy of http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cg i?TITLE=47&PART=64&SECTION=1200&TYPE=TEXT

        TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED) PART 64_MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS--Table of Contents Subpart L_Restrictions on Telemarketing and Telephone Solicitation Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.

      print it out and keep it by the phone (bonus tip include a partners and any that you share your list with line in the remove you from your list "request")

      oh btw a DNC "request" drops out the "established business relationship" and does not have any exemptions so if you get a call from the "Joe Shlock for Chairman of Vice campain" a DNC blocks all callers from the campain
      extra bonus tip start recording the calls

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    3. Re:Tips by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not getting a telezapper until it actually zaps telemarketers.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  13. Easy by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Funny

    Me: "Which candidate is this?"
    Them: Candidate A
    Me: Who is his opponent?
    Them: Candidate B
    Me: Okay. I'll vote for Candidate B. Thanks for interrupting my day.

    Enough peopl do this, people won't call.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Easy by cagle_.25 · · Score: 2, Funny
      In Candidate B's office

      Op #1: Hey guys, I've got a list of contrarian voters. Who wants to make the calls?

      Op #2: That would be me. Who's first?

      Op #1: "MyLongNickName (822545)"

      Op #2 (dials 822545): Hi, I'm calling on behalf of Candidate A's campaign

      You: I'll vote for Candidate B. Thanks for interrupting my day.

      Op #2: Sorry to bother you, sir. (hangs up) Yes! Another easy vote.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    2. Re:Easy by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      But at least then what they're doing would be illegal, and eventually would likely lead to candidates being disqualified (or at least fined and losing votes).

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    3. Re:Easy by cagle_.25 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, it would be illegal. But in my state (Maryland, home of dirty politics), there would be a fine and after four years, no one would remember. I know of no case -- although my knowledge is limited -- in which a candidate was removed from office because of dirty campaign tricks.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    4. Re:Easy by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Next day:
      Me: "Which candidate is this?"
      Them: Candidate B
      Me: Who is his opponent?
      Them: Candidate A
      Me: Okay. I'll vote for Candidate A. Thanks for interrupting my day.

      Now who do you vote for?

    5. Re:Easy by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Candidate C.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    6. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem with that: If Candidate C is not phonebanking, then Candidate C is probably not running an effective campaign, so the election will be decided between Candidates A, B, D, E, etc. who are running effective campaigns with the help of phones. The end result is that your vote will not affect the outcome, and you've lost a golden opportunity to let campaigns A and B know what issues are most important to you. (Unless, of course, you'd rather let someone else decide policy, in which case the United States is probably not the right country for you.)

    7. Re:Easy by fatwater · · Score: 1

      Are you naive enough to believe that these tactics don't play in political telemarketing already? I worked on a major presidential race, and we had many trustworthy reports from Iowa that people where getting calls from our campaign around 2 to 4am in the morning. Guess what...it really wasn't our campaign, and it was making people pissed of at us none the less. This is par for the course along with push polls and the sort. There needs to be major election reform that starts at campaigning and financing.

    8. Re:Easy by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      I disagree. You have made it quite clear to campaigns A and B that you support the issues of campaign C. Voting for a lesser evil in an election where there is a third party canidate that you actually agree with is nonsensical. Even if that candidate is never elected, they major parties may see that their platform has appeal and adopt parts of it (or, at least, pretend to).

      Obviously, there are more issues to an election than who is making phone calls (which I think was your point). On the other hand, recorded phone calls are annoying and seem unprofessional to me.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  14. best of both worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We still have a landline but I solved the bogus call problems by never answering the phone. I only use it for outgoing calls or the internet. Friends and people who need a number get the cellphone number. I'm *almost* ready to ditch the landline, but haven't, because so far the wireless internet and cellphone are not quite adequate in bad weather (net connection evaporates and cell calls get too noisy to be practical), the tech still needs some improvement.

    1. Re:best of both worlds by Mr.+Byaninch · · Score: 2

      I'm sorta in the same place. I have to have a landline in order to get broadband. (Apartment owners made a deal with SBC... What can I say?). Anyway, all my friends use my cell #. When the landline rings (ringer is off), if I notice it (face lights up) or DirecTV caller ID shows up, if it's a local number I don't recogize, I just don't answer. If it's an area code where I have family and friends, I answer. But basically, JUST DON'T ANSWER. Not that big a deal.

      --
      Sig not available, please try again later. If the problem persists, then the submitter is an idiot.
    2. Re:best of both worlds by jonwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Better yet, dont use your landline at all.
      Have a cellphone and/or VoIP.
      Dont give out the landline phone number to anyone, only the cell number.
      If you have Cable for internet, dont get a phone line at all.
      If you have Fiber or something else, dont get a phone line.
      If you have Dialup or you have DSL or you have Fiber or something and you must have a phone line (e.g. "verizon will only let you get FIOS if you get verizon phone over that FIOS"), get the phone line but dont even have a real phone (only the modem for broadband/dialup) plugged into it.

      That way, even if the telemarketers do get your landline number (if any), all they get is no answer then ring out since no-one even knows a call was made.

    3. Re:best of both worlds by Mr.+Byaninch · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Uh, read my post. READ MY POST. Oh, and READ MY POST. And maybe READ MY POST. There must be something you can't understand in it. So READ MY POST AGAIN!. Then go away.

      --
      Sig not available, please try again later. If the problem persists, then the submitter is an idiot.
  15. Get a cell phone by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 5, Informative

    What the hell are you doing still using a land line, anyway?

    Cancel your land line and get a cell phone (and remember to put a text-messaging block on it). You won't receive ANY telemarketing calls.

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    1. Re:Get a cell phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is wrong. Cell phones aren't supposed to receive telemarketing calls, but that hasn't stopped political telemarketers from calling my cell phone.

    2. Re:Get a cell phone by Aqws · · Score: 1

      What happens when you start getting calls to your cell phone? Btw, I know this doesn't happen yet, I'm curios though, is there anything keeping it from happening?

    3. Re:Get a cell phone by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Cancel your land line and get a cell phone (and remember to put a text-messaging block on it). You won't receive ANY telemarketing calls.

      And you'll also be screwed in case of a power failure, when celluar towers lose power. POTS is amazingly reliable, running on batteries for a long time. (Of course, for best results you'll need an old-school wired phone - pick one up at Goodwill.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:Get a cell phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also won't be able to understand any of the calls you do recieve, due to the excessive compression artifacts. Assuming they aren't dropped immediately.

      Sorry, it's just been my experience with cell phones (Cingular GSM network, Samsung and Motorola phones) that they're almost unusable as actual phones. If you and the person you're calling are both getting a full five bars it might work; anything less and it's garbled, overcompressed, dropped-packet city. Every time my cell phone rings, I think I'm beta testing for Cingular (someone else is paying for my phone/plan, otherwise I would have cancelled it a year ago).
      Maybe it'll be better when they actually start using all that high-speed 3G stuff (GPRS, EDGE, etc.) for transmitting voice data, rather than cramming it all into the 0.5kbps or whatever GSM uses. Until then, I'll keep my land line.

    5. Re:Get a cell phone by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      *shrug* Maybe it's time to switch providers if you've only tried Cingular. Sounds like it's not worth it even though it's free. I've used Cingular in Boston and T-Mobile in Viriginia and Michigan, plus roaming pretty much across the US, and maybe have one dropped call every two or three months. And maybe once a month a call is fuzzy enough that I can't understand something, but it usually clears up in a minute or two. It's more than reliable enough to be my only phone line. Sure, there are a few areas out in the middle of nowhere that I can't get reception, but I don't spend much time out there - and if I had a land line it's not like I could take it out there anyhow!

      I've never had a problem using it during power outages, either, as a poster above suggested. (Although I do have an emergency backup battery in case the power is out long enough that I can't recharge.)

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    6. Re:Get a cell phone by pentalive · · Score: 1

      I ocaistionally get some sort of marketing message on my cell, It appears a new voice message even if my cell was on and could have rung. I don't know what it is because it's in spanish and I don't speak spanish. I'll be really mad if it's costing me to get these.

      My brothers have had drone on recorded messages, they even hung up only to find that if they picked up the phone too soon the recorded message was still droneing on... makes you wonder what you would do if you had a need for emergency services and your phone line was jammed up by some droneing recording.

    7. Re:Get a cell phone by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

      During most major mass-scale emergencies (earthquakes, 9/11, hurricans, etc) in recent years, people on cellular phones have been able to get calls through much better than people on landlines have been able to, due to the landline phone network not having the capacity to handle the sudden rush of calls. In almost any emergency situation you can dream up, you're better off using a cell phone.

      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    8. Re:Get a cell phone by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      In almost any emergency situation you can dream up, you're better off using a cell phone.

      You know, I linked to that article about the 2003 blackout's effect on cell phones for a reason... :-)

      It's best to have both a cell and a landline, so that you've got maximum chance of one working in case of a disaster.

      It's also useful to have two telephone numbers; my cell number I give to people I actually would like to talk to, the home landline number is for people who can leave a message that I'll check at my convenience.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    9. Re:Get a cell phone by Eil · · Score: 1

      Um, sure I'll pay 2x-3x more for 1/8 the voice quality and a legally-binding contract just to be interrupted more often by friends and family than telemarketers.

      And mark my words, it won't be long now until the cell phone companies notice that they'll make all kinds of money by selling their subscriber list to telemarketers. They get to charge the telemarketers for the list *and* their customers for answering each call!

    10. Re:Get a cell phone by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      Then I go get them to cancel my contract...

      Free roaming...go to an area with roaming, and run up a couple of $200 phone calls...they pay for it, they lose money.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    11. Re:Get a cell phone by amigabill · · Score: 1

      Cancel your land line and get a cell phone (and remember to put a text-messaging block on it). You won't receive ANY telemarketing calls.

      I wouldn't receive ANY phone calls at home. Period. I get a great signal at work, but at home the signal is very poor and calls often disconnect in the middle of conversations, which mostly consist of "are you still there?"... And I went with this service because it's supposed to have the best coverage anywhere, and other roommates have not had any signal whatsoever at home with other services. Cell phones suck, and it's more expensive than my landline. ($40/mo for cell, $29/mo or less for landline including long-distance charges, and now I'm stuck paying for both)

  16. depends on who is calling by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    if it is the GOP calling i tell them if they dont stop calling i will vote for a democrat.

    if it is the DNC calling i tell them if they dont stop calling i will vote for a republican.

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  17. Mod parent up by porcupine8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I haven't had a landline in over three years, and I haven't gotten a telemarketing call (political or otherwise) in just as long. The closest I've come is some theater I'd seen a show at asking for a donation, and that was a couple years ago.

    Of course, there will come a day when so few people have landlines (that they actually use for voice) that politicians will make sure they can canvas the cel phones too, but until that day comes it's great.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  18. Don't hang up by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you don't mind being rude try this:

    If you are busy ask them to hold on for a while- e.g. "Please hold on, I'll be back".

    Then finish doing whatever it is you are doing (dinner, shower etc) and if there's nothing else more urgent/important to do, come back and answer their questions.

    This way you also delay them from pestering the next person.

    --
    1. Re:Don't hang up by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      No - ask them to hold and then give the phone to a toddler (should you be so fortunate as to have one handy.)

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    2. Re:Don't hang up by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      I don't mind at all, and here's how I handle it.

      "Fuck off, your candidate just lost my vote"

      *Hang up phone*

      If I give a shit about the candidate, I might call or email his/her office and let them know about the problem. Otherwise, I'm not so kind.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    3. Re:Don't hang up by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Also, in my state, automated dialers are illegal.

      Spoofing CID data is going to cause a serious problem for any group I catch doing it as well.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    4. Re:Don't hang up by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      I've chosen three basic responses:

      "Good day." (click) (90% of the time)

      If disturbed because I'm waiting for someone real to call, I have started off with, "Listen, you goat-buggering parasite....", with the volume rising rapidly. I have suggested that telemarketers get some job that requires skill, demonstrates they have self-respect, and produces a benefit to society, such as squeegee-man at an interstate on-ramp. This level of effort and invective is rare, as it takes a particularly annoying caller to be worth the time. The goal is to leave them with their nerves sufficiently rattled that they'll flub the next couple of calls.

      "I'm sorry, but I am morally opposed to everything your party stands for. Do not call here again, and best wishes to your candidate's opponent" (click)

      Unfortunately, I haven't felt it worth the time, since the do not call list went into effect, to play the William Tell overture on the phone keypad, or other more creative responses.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    5. Re:Don't hang up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who works as an "interviewer" for a poll company, I can tell you that this is one of the most depressing things that can happen to you on a shift.

      We're almost all students and recent immigrants; we make more than minimum wage, but just barely - $.75/hour over the minimum in Quebec. The number of people we successfully complete surveys with has an effect on the number of hours we can schedule to work in the next week. You might not think it's a big deal to slow us down, but you might be costing us $45 from our next paycheque because you bring down our productivity rate.

      If you don't want to be called, please, politely ask to be put on the Do Not Call list. Poll firms and political groups, as well as businesses that have pre-existing relationship with you are not covered by the US national DNC list (we're near-shored: we do calls to the US almost all the time, even though we're in Montreal.) Please don't yell at us. We'd never do that to you. We're just trying to pay our rent and tuition - if better jobs were out there and available to us, we'd be working them instead.

    6. Re:Don't hang up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As someone who works as an "interviewer" for a poll company, I can tell you that this is one of the most depressing things that can happen to you on a shift.
      As someone who answers those calls, I can tell you that makes me really sad. Sniff.

      Why don't you gargle with ground glass, I hear that helps sooth your throat for those long hours making phone calls?

      Please don't yell at us. We'd never do that to you.
      Likewise, I'd never call you at home. Please don't bother us.

    7. Re:Don't hang up by philmack · · Score: 1

      That is exactly why I try to keep telemarketers of any kind on the phone as long as possible. If you are talking to me for five minutes that is ten people fewer you interrupted at the end of your shift, that is that many fewer opportunities your boss has to make money.
      I work at home, so every time the phone rings, I have to answer. You (and I do mean you personally, since you are the one calling me) cost me productivity. I don't really care how much money you get to make by bothering me, because bothering me is exactly what you are doing. If I can hurt your bottom line and your boss's bottom line at the same time, that is exactly what i am going to do.
      As far as asking to be put on any DNC list, I don't even know how many of these I've asked to be put on, but it doesn't seem to be any more helpful than clicking unsubscribe links in spam email.

  19. So... You want to Sue a Telemarketer by daigu · · Score: 1

    Basically, you can either use standard technical or social means for screening out telemarketing calls or you may have to resort to a legal approach. For standard methods, consult Junkbusters as a start. In this case, you may have to resort to a legal approach. Private Citzen has one book you might find useful if you care enough about this to go that route.

  20. Dont Vote by kaufmanmoore · · Score: 1

    If we get ourselves a dictatorship we won't have to worry about this shit.

    1. Re:Dont Vote by DuctTape · · Score: 1
      If we get ourselves a dictatorship we won't have to worry about this shit.

      Too late (if you live in the USA). We already have one.

      DT

      --
      Is this thing on? Hello?
    2. Re:Dont Vote by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but still get the shit. :( Bush (+ gov and friends) is all the bad of voting with all the bad of dictatorships rolled into one.

  21. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    Why don't you tell us who the 2 candidates are? Or better yet, blog about it.

    Or do you think Lieberman's about to lose his Senate seat because everyone stayed quiet about the details?

    --
    [o]_O
  22. Do what Merlin Mann did... by faster · · Score: 1

    This (sorry; podcast, but at least it's short) is the best answer I've heard. I'm going to put this on my Asterisk system.

    1. Re:Do what Merlin Mann did... by mark_hill97 · · Score: 1

      You know, it would have been helpul to actually TELL us what he did.

  23. Both sides? by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd just vote for their opponent, but sometimes I'm getting called by both sides.

    A perfect example of the fundamental problem with American democracy. The two major parties both stink, but you won't even consider voting for anybody else, to the point where you actually forget other parties exist. Both sides? You really think there are only two candidates? Go ahead and vote for Kodos.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    1. Re:Both sides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't happen in presidential elections, but last time I voted for state assembly (California legislature), there really was only one name on the ballot. Noone even tried to run against the incumbent.

    2. Re:Both sides? by Valdrax · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The problem is that third parties are not viable in the US due to the way our electoral system works. A combination of the electoral college with its winner-take-all votes for each state ensures that at a national level only two parties can survive. Only a handful of time in American history has a third party won, and in doing so it replaced one of the other two parties. Never has the US had a coallition government because the very structure of the system prevents it.

      So, I'll vote for one of the two major parties, and you can vote for a Libertarian, a Green, a cartoon character, or Santa Claus for all the good it will do you. The math doesn't allow for change except in periods of turmoil and extreme weakness by one of the two parties.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    3. Re:Both sides? by Arslan+ibn+Da'ud · · Score: 1

      (and me without mod points!) MOD PARENT UP!

      Don't complain about 'offtopic'. If 3rd parties were viable, there would be a party loudly proclaiming that they don't spam the public with phonecalls.

      As it is now, Libertarians (and most other 3rd parties) don't spam me, but they can't afford to proclaim it loudly.

      --

      Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.

    4. Re:Both sides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Kodos? If we're gonna elect kodos might as well elect Cairne Bloodhoof for President. FOR THE HORDE!

  24. Turned off my landline's ringer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, seriously. Two election cycles ago. I haven't regretted it at all. Every so often, I check to see if I have voicemail, but friends and family call on the cell. Everyone else gets the landline as a phone number, and they can call all they want. I won't hear it if they don't leave a message, and I don't even get the annoyance of the answering machine clicking on.

    Some political groups still leave messages, but those are trivially deleted.

    1. Re:Turned off my landline's ringer by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Some political groups still leave messages, but those are trivially deleted.

      The next time you feel like bitching about politicians not giving a damn about what's important to you, don't.

      They're trying to find out but you won't let them.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  25. sides? plural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you b lucky man, around here more than half the positions on the ballot have only one person running.

  26. Lose the land line by Osty · · Score: 1

    If we get a call from a number we don't recognise, or is blocked from giving the caller id, we let the answering machine take it. If the person starts to leave a message, and we want to talk to them, we pick up. But telemarketers hang up as soon as the hear a machine.

    An answering machine is only a temporary solution. You still have to screen it, hear the phone ring, hear the message and the person talking, etc. You just don't have to deal with the person yourself. A better solution is to ditch your land line entirely. Unless you still use a dialup net connection, you don't need it. Get a good cell phone on a provider with a strong signal in your area, and be done with it. Since incoming cell phone calls cost you minutes(money), cell phones are exempt from phone spam (telemarketers or politicians alike).

    Chances are you already have a cell phone, so why are you paying that extra $20+ per month for the useless land line?

    I ditched my land line three years ago after getting fed up with receiving nothing but phone spam (I use my cell phone for real communication). Rather than deal with no-call lists, I just tossed the damned thing. Haven't missed it since. If you must have a land line (bundled in a DSL package, for example), turn off the ringer, don't get an answering machine, get the cheapest plan you can (which is still usually $20/mo), and only use it for emergencies like calling 911.

    1. Re:Lose the land line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell phones are exempt from the phone spam only in theory. I get much more phone spam on my cell phone than on my land line. The differance is that the cell spam is from pre recorded messages in spanish that aren't politically oriented 90% of the time, and the land line phones are politically motived recordings or pollsters. Either way I'm paying to be the recipient of spam regardless of laws and regulations.

  27. Call Him Back by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Call the politician involved at home at dinner time on Sunday evening and tell him you are going to vote against him because of the call.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  28. Hang up by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Just like any other telemarketing call. "No thanks" [click]

    1. Re:Hang up by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      You misspelled "Fuck Off"

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re:Hang up by deadhammer · · Score: 3, Informative
      Won't work. Had to work telemarketing about five years ago (not the high point of my life), and they DO distinguish between "no thanks" and "do not call". "No thanks" simply means you're getting recycled back into the "2nd run" call list. "Do not call" means just that, if they violate it it's a $500.00 fine. So here's what you say:

      "Let me interrupt you. I do not appreciate these calls, period. I'm not interested in your (service/product/political pitch). Put me on your Do Not Call list, and I forbid you from sharing my phone information with affiliates or third parties. This WILL take effect immediately, I will take action if I get another call. Thank you. *click*"

      If they try to sell you that "Our systems process do not call requests within thirty days, you may get another phone call" bullshit, inform them that do not call requests are immediate. If you get another call, you will take legal action and report it to the authorities. They DO have to record their calls, so they will have a backlog including the DNC request. Just be firm, tell them to put you on the do not call list, reassure them that you expect it to be immediate, and hang up. Don't take any shit from them, and you'll be fine.

      --
      I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
    3. Re:Hang up by bschak · · Score: 1

      No. Do-not-call requests may indeed take up to thirty days. See Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, paragraph 64.1200(d)(3).

      Or are you talking about some state or local regulation?

  29. This one worked for me. by gettingbraver · · Score: 5, Funny

    I got a telemarketing call from one of the major parties the other day. I politely thanked the caller, said that I understood how important fundraising was to a candidate, then mentioned that I was a member of the Green Pary and asked if the caller like to make a contribution. THEY hung up on me!

  30. OH NOES!!!!! by Dryanta · · Score: 1

    Someone gave Pee-Wee Herman an internet connection!!!

  31. The "You voted for them" double think by MarkusQ · · Score: 1
    They are also going along with these hair brained ideas because YOU elected them... I don't understand how people can be so anti politicians if you don't like them don't vote for them...

    Ah, but I didn't vote for them. And, in several cases, neither did the majority of the people I know. So who did? Beats me. In one case it was the SCOTUS, but that in the rest? Perhaps some sheeple I've never met, perhaps a small team at the company that makes our voting machines, who knows?

    The point, of course, is not how they got there, but how we can rid ourselves of them.

    --MarkusQ

    1. Re:The "You voted for them" double think by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Markus,

      I dig everything you're saying. Could I ask a personal favor, though? Would you stop using the term "sheeple"? Use anything else: morons, idiots, even just sheep. For some reason it just really grates on me, and makes me imagine you as a 14 year old, which I know you're not. Most everything else you have to say is insightful, but that one word. . . gah! It's not clever, it's just dumb.

      Maybe I'm over reacting. Carry on.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  32. Make it public by JoeCommodore · · Score: 1

    Make a record of which political groups are doing slimball telemarketing tactics (include pertinent details such as false caller IDs, mudslinging or misleading comments, etc.) Next put in on a weblog or if you have enough call your local news agency, either way the political parties will quickly respond to bad press. Calling them to complain proabbly will only get thier campaign manager who authorized the tactic in the first place.

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
  33. Why is our political system like it is? by sauge · · Score: 0

    I have to admit I am a little disgusted by this thread.

    If you live in the United States, I hate to break this news to you but you should be obligated to participate in your government - it is "for the people BY the people."

    Hopefully I am wrong, but as I read this, I see a bunch of fools who like to complain about shit but are more vexed when their playstation/x-box game is interrupted by a phone call from someone who MIGHT ACTUALLY COME TO A POSITION TO SAY WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO.

    Why is the country going to fuck - continously ruled by ever increasing extremism on both sides? Because people don't want to be involved.

    Bad news for you - but YOU ARE INVOLVED WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. You can have a say in how the government works - or you can merely accept the ass kickin's to our civil rights the government hands out SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED.

    My God where are my moderator points when I need them?!?!

    1. Re:Why is our political system like it is? by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 1
      I see a bunch of fools who like to complain about shit but are more vexed when their playstation/x-box game is interrupted by a phone call from someone who MIGHT ACTUALLY COME TO A POSITION TO SAY WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO.

      I, for one, read the news to be an informed citizen and I do vote.
      I can use the national No Call list to prevent people from interrupting my life to sell me siding that I don't need. Why can't I have a way stop calls to my private phone that say little more than "VOTE FOR GEORGE KERRY / JOHN BUSH"? I may be nieve, but I like to pretend the voters are in charge.

    2. Re:Why is our political system like it is? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Politely, this is why I read the major papers, various periodicals, and use the news archives, as well as their campaign literature (if they're the challenger and don't have a public record) as well as the league of women voters sheets, before elections. I did this even when living in a one-party state (Chicago), because I needed to make at least an informed (if pointless) opposition. This is how to get information about the candidate, which while spun, is rarely spun by the candidate for best effect.

      Having listened to telemarketed pitches in the past, I fail to see how forcing people to sit through deliberate obfuscation on the part of candidates, such as the misleading polls and false rumors spread about McCain in SC during the 2000 primaries, benefits the democratic process. Those calls are (at best) to raise money for the national party, when they aren't deliberately sliming the opposition. I get mailings from the Republicans, which have polls (heh) which are skewed to make you believe you're either a war-mongering, authoritarian, supply-sider or a spaced-out hippie communist, and from the Democrats which imply you're either a left-over McGovernite Great-Society socialist, or an iron-age warlord. The calls are more of the same, and neither is useful to the democratic process, except to excite their "base" (i.e. the extremist 10% on each end of the spectrum). (and if you want to get on both party's mailing lists, try subscribing simultaneously to the Wall Street Journal, and The Nation)

      The country is ruled by extremists for a variety of reasons, of which congressional-district gerrymandering, and closed-primaries (which energize the moon-bat wing) are two of the most egregious. Add to that a general problem that no matter who you vote for, the government gets elected (CF Chicago above), and the recipe for apathy is about perfect. If you want a functioning democracy, then work on Open primaries (people regardless of party may vote for the candidates of either party, to ensure bipartisan support), draw congressional districts explicitly to exclude party affiliation, and use term-limits, age-limits, or basic-competency-limits to ensure some turnover now and then.

      Don't fear protest candidates, try to force run-offs, and gather your own information; don't rely on politicians to paint their own image.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    3. Re:Why is our political system like it is? by darkonc · · Score: 1
      Hanging up on telemarketers and not voting/participating are two entirely different things. Telemarketing is designed to get the uninformed plebes who are easily maleable and/or just vote republican/democratic "because my grandpa did", and remind them to vote.

      If you really want to kick ass politically, then go out and work on a campaign or something like that... Work for the Green Party, or the Libertarians, or find a good Dem/Rep who actually pays attention to what works for his constituants (as opposed to his big-money donors).

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    4. Re:Why is our political system like it is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why is the country going to fuck - continously ruled by ever increasing extremism on both sides? Because people don't want to be involved.

      If you don't want to choose between the scum sucking, communist, tax-and-spend democrats or the barely literate, bible thumping, closet homosexual, republicans there is no place for you in American politics. Don't vote. It just encourages them. American politics makes me vomit.

    5. Re:Why is our political system like it is? by bschak · · Score: 1

      (Score: -1, Trite.)

    6. Re:Why is our political system like it is? by eskayp · · Score: 1

      And hanging up on political pollsters can be two things.

      Some calls will be 'Push Polls' with rhetoric 'questions' designed to sway you toward a candidate or away from his/her opponent.

      That's an excellent time to hang up.

      A FEW other polls are genuine attempts to determine voter preferences on a variety of issues.
      They are professionally done and quite expensive.
      They also provide a way for a few voters to disproportionately influence how a candidate will view those issues.
      That's an excellent time to participate and amplify your input on topics you consider important.
      The candidate may be from the opposite camp, but will pay attention to the risks involved in going against public opinion.

      --
      I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
    7. Re:Why is our political system like it is? by Infernal+Device · · Score: 1

      I will admit that I am fully disgusted with your response.

      1) I read. I read what I can, when I can to try and fully understand the policy and impact of our policitician's actions. Then I vote accordingly.

      2) The Freedom of Speech by definition includes the Freedom to Remain Silent, for whatever reason, without explanation. Perhaps not the best choice, but a valid choice, nonetheless.

      You really should tie your high horse up somewhere else.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    8. Re:Why is our political system like it is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, that so funny coming from an American.
      Did you ever concider your precious news may be biased??
      I'm disgusted when I watch/read American "news".

  34. you could just be normal about it and hang up by bunions · · Score: 1

    As soon as I realize it's a telemarketer, instead of getting all riled up about this microscopic inconvenience, I just hang up.

    "Political surveys are done by real people, but they hang up on me if I stray from answering their questions. "

    As well they should. Polls are not about your feelings, their accuracy is almost completely dependant on people answering very carefully worded questions in very precise ways. If you don't want to take the poll, hang up.

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    1. Re:you could just be normal about it and hang up by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 1
      "Political surveys are done by real people, but they hang up on me if I stray from answering their questions."
      As well they should.

      But you see, they hang up if I try to get put on their "don't call list", ask for a supervisor, or try to find out what company is calling me. Their "caller ID" CLI information is either missing or bogus, so I don't have a method of complaining about their behavior if I can't ask questions.

      If you don't want to take the poll, hang up.
      And hang up and hang up and hang up... this is silly. Do you "just hit delete" for your spam, or do you use a spam filter? The No Call list should be expanded to include political calls. (All we have to do is get the law changed by... politicians.)

    2. Re:you could just be normal about it and hang up by bunions · · Score: 1

      "But you see, they hang up if I try to get put on their "don't call list", ask for a supervisor, or try to find out what company is calling me."

      As you noted, there is no do-not-call list for political stuff. Until such a thing exists - which I think we can all agree would be a Good Thing - just hang up. Don't kid yourself that anyone cares if you say you'll just vote for the other guy or whatever, they just move on to the next card in the stack. Simply waste as little of your time as you can.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  35. Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your answers make you sound like an ideal candidate for the Libertarian party. Please join up right away!

    But please fix this damned captcha. It says "drunkly" for some reason.

  36. what i do by Mike_ya · · Score: 1

    Don't pick up.

  37. Join the communists by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    They will kill each other deciding what to say to you.

    (Note: I was and know many communists, and they will mostly agree with this. The ones who don't are busy killing each other over it.)

  38. or just mumble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just mumble in response.

    Pollster: Are you very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely to agree?
    Me: ummm, mawlll rwhummmm ... ahhhh ... sortaaaaa kennnniiii prutannn.
    Pollster: I'm sorry, could you repeat that.
    Me: iirrrrr, kennnahhlll ... pettannnn beaasunn.
    Pollster: Ummm, so, I'll put you down as somewhat unlikely.
    Me: NO! I cannnn perrrr trunnndle ... messssiin tenna.
    Pollster: I'm having a hard time understanding you.
    Me: herrrrannnn keppalllllliiinn ... teeetaaarrrreni

    It's fun seeing how long they keep trying to ask you questions until they give up.

  39. Puzzled by bschak · · Score: 1

    I'm a little puzzled about why people here are getting so worked up about this. Does a 15- or 20-second inconvenience fray your nerves so much that you need to devise anti-calling plots to post on Slashdot? If that's the case, I frankly recommend a deep breath, a pleasant stroll, and a massage. I'm friendly even when commercial telemarketers or Republicans call.

    Anyhow, I'd like to make a few points based on ten years' of off-and-on experience calling people from political campaigns (mostly as a volunteer, but some volunteer recruitment as staff):

    For starters, the vast majority of the world isn't as reclusive, sensitive, or whiny as the Slashdotters seem to be. Almost all people will remain polite through a quick, friendly, to-the-point conversation. And thank goodness! The world would be a sorry place if everyone threw temper tantrums about such a little thing.

    Few calls are done to raise money. Calls may be done to 1) boost name recognition; 2) persuade swingable voters; 3) identify supporters to be turned out to the polls on election day; 4) remind people to vote; 5) recruit volunteers; 6) find people willing to host lawn-signs; 7) identify the issues of greatest importance to voters; 8) miscellaneous other purposes (a campaign once had me phone-bank to get donations to a local flood relief effort, for example). If you think that you're getting a bunch of fundraising calls, you're either hanging up too early or you're an unusual case. I can't tell you the number of conversations I've had that start like this: Me---"Hi, I'm ***, a volunteer calling from ***. How are you?" Person---"I don't give money over the phone." Me---"Oh, I'm not calling for money at all."

    Unless you are a party activist or past donor being targeted for volunteer recruitment or fundraising, most calls are part of a comprehensive get-out-the-vote effort that starts several months before the election. A campaign needs to identify its supporters, and then needs to follow up with them at least a couple times before and on election day for the message to sink in. You may also be getting persuasion calls if a campaign has some reason to believe you're persuadable (you registered without a party, you told a previous caller that you were undecided, you live in an area with lots of ticket-splitting, etc.).

    So, what are the best ways to avoid calls? If you're actually getting calls for money, you've probably given money at some point before; don't do that.

    If you're getting get-out-the-vote calls (calls to identify you as a supporter or calls to remind you to vote), it means you can't be counted on to vote. It may be harsh to say, but if you think you can be counted on to vote, you should probably think again---think back to the last election in your area without vigorous campaigns (maybe a primary election in an odd-numbered year for example), and if you're like 90% of Americans, then you didn't vote. I don't get those calls (maybe one on presidential election days) because I always, always take it upon myself to vote, whether or not there's a major election with some candidate working to turn me out to the polls. If people voted on their own accord, get-out-the-vote efforts wouldn't exist.

    Persuasion calls are easy to stop. Tell the caller that you're supporting one or another of the candidates. If you plan on telling the caller that you're supporting the caller's opponent, it's probably a good idea to at least know both the candidate's names. If you always (and, as above, I really mean always) vote, then it's just as effective to say that you support the caller's candidate.

    Several Slashdotters' suggestions (hanging up, letting the line go dead, etc.) will accomplish nothing but getting called back a couple weeks later, because the initial contact failed. Telling the caller that you support the other guy will not worry the caller much, because you probably cannot be counted on to vote. (This is especially true if you can't even come up with the other guy's name.)

    I'm also puzzled by what exa

    1. Re:Puzzled by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 1
      I'm a little puzzled about why people here are getting so worked up about this.
      I'm the whiny guy who started this, so I'll take a shot at explaining. I'm annoyed because the number of political calls I'm getting has taken a sharp increase. I'm getting tons of automated calls. These calls have either no call ID information or bogus caller ID information, so I can't tell them from legitimate calls. And frankly, I'm spoiled from the No Call list -- I'm not used to not being bothered with stupid calls, and I like it. It my phone and telemarketers should respect my request not to be bothered.

      I'd like to make a few points based on ten years' of off-and-on experience calling people from political campaigns
      Ah, so you are one of them. Out of politeness, I won't call you a bastard.

      The world would be a sorry place if everyone threw temper tantrums about such a little thing.
      I'm not throwing a temper tantrums -- heck, most of the time, it is a recorded message at the other end of the line.

      If you're getting get-out-the-vote calls (calls to identify you as a supporter or calls to remind you to vote), it means you can't be counted on to vote.
      But I do vote. I think that might actually be part of my problem. The voter records are available to the candidates, supposedly so vote fraud can be investigated.

      Persuasion calls are easy to stop. Tell the caller...
      But there is no caller. Just a machine most of the time. And the rest of the time, the people might as well be machines. I've tried calling the campaigns to get off their lists, but it doesn't do any good.

      If you want less personal voter contact...
      I don't consider automated phone calls personal contact. I don't care if they advertise on TV -- I am in control of my remote and when I watch TV, and somebody has to pay the bills for the broadcaster. It might as well be a politician as a soap company.

      TV ads cost much more money than direct voter contact, and effective campaigns require enough money as it is.
      Not my problem. In any case, I'm just getting phone calls from the two major parties, so it isn't like they don't find money to advertise elsewhere.

      you probably don't like door-knocking either
      No, but at least I can tell them to get lost.

      how would you run effective get-out-the-vote and persuasion campaigns?
      Gee, maybe candidates could talk about the issues and present real solutions to today's problems?

      There is no force so powerful as an idea whose time has come. -- Everett Dirksen
    2. Re:Puzzled by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Does a 15- or 20-second inconvenience fray your nerves so much that you need to devise anti-calling plots to post on Slashdot?

      Yes.

      Look - the fzact that you feel differently doesn't mean that they're wrong. It just means that they feel differently.

    3. Re:Puzzled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a little puzzled about why people here are getting so worked up about this. Does a 15- or 20-second inconvenience fray your nerves so much that you need to devise anti-calling plots to post on Slashdot?

      You left out a key part of the above equation - per candidate. Think about how many elections there are every year, how many positions are on each ballot, and how many candidates there are for each ballot. Now figure on one call (automated recorded message) from each candidate in the week leading up to the election and one call from each on election day, all targeted at the same time of day. Add in a few from the various parties just for fun, and double the number if you have both a cell phone and a land line. Now do you see the problem here? This is why people hate telemarketers, and they don't care whether the telemarketer is selling vinyl siding or a candidate.

      Almost all people will remain polite through a quick, friendly, to-the-point conversation.

      See what happens when you increase the frequency of these "quick, friendly, to-the-point" conversations. You'll probably find that everyone has a breaking point at which they stop being polite. The ones who are never polite have probably reached their breaking point from their work and/or home lives and have no patience left for random strangers peddling their wares.

      Calls may be done to 1) boost name recognition; 2) persuade swingable voters; 3) identify supporters to be turned out to the polls on election day; 4) remind people to vote; 5) recruit volunteers; 6) find people willing to host lawn-signs; 7) identify the issues of greatest importance to voters; 8) miscellaneous other purposes (a campaign once had me phone-bank to get donations to a local flood relief effort, for example).

      Even more calls! Once you can justify doing it, if people don't speak up against it, then the calls will just be flooding in - one call to get the name out, another for lawn signs, a few more on issues, a couple for swing voters, calls from everyone on election day... This is why people are so strongly opposed to this practice; there needs to be a consequence to this action to discourage it from becoming too widespread. Massive calling efforts are likely to generate anger and displeasure, and everyone involved in these calls needs to be aware of this. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be enough.

      I can't tell you the number of conversations I've had that start like this: Me---"Hi, I'm ***, a volunteer calling from ***. How are you?" Person---"I don't give money over the phone." Me---"Oh, I'm not calling for money at all."

      Guess what - we don't believe you. Sorry, but our experience with sleazeball telemarketers and scam artists has made us a bit cynical. First they started asking for money, then they said "we're not asking for any money NOW, we just want to send you stuff that will ask you for money." It's all the same, and we're sick of it. Those who came before you have already pissed everyone off.

      Unless you are a party activist or past donor being targeted for volunteer recruitment or fundraising, most calls are part of a comprehensive get-out-the-vote effort that starts several months before the election. A campaign needs to identify its supporters, and then needs to follow up with them at least a couple times before and on election day for the message to sink in. You may also be getting persuasion calls if a campaign has some reason to believe you're persuadable (you registered without a party, you told a previous caller that you were undecided, you live in an area with lots of ticket-splitting, etc.).

      And still more calls! Several months before the election? That would typically go back to the previous election, so now we're talking about a constant flood of calls year-round. And now any information you provide can be used as an excuse to get flooded with more calls! Do you see the problem here yet?

      If you're getting get

    4. Re:Puzzled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a little puzzled about why people here are getting so worked up about this. Does a 15- or 20-second inconvenience fray your nerves so much that you need to devise anti-calling plots to post on Slashdot?

      Yes. You see, it's never just one 15-20 second inconvenience. It always escalates until another law is passed.

      Tell me this: If one is okay, then why not two? Three? A dozen? One hundred? How many 15-20 second inconveniences are you willing to tolerate until you devise anti-calling plots on Slashdot? And at what point do you have the ability to restrict telemarketers from surpassing your chosen limit for a telephone service YOU pay for YOUR use? This is why telemarketers have been restricted again and again, because they have demonstrated that they will repeatedly abuse the public.

    5. Re:Puzzled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the views expressed here are appalling, showing no understanding or sophistication about the political process. Sure, those automated calls are annoying and I'd like to ban them to. Having served as a phone-calling volunteer many times, I can also appreciate that a lot of volunteers are working hard to get their candidates elected.

      To vote for party A because someone from party B called is a ludicrous idea. Party A could be completely opposed to net-neutrality for example, or any number of other causes that slashdot readers should care about. Unfortunately, politics is a somewhat intrusive, ugly process that we need to accomodate.

      I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

    6. Re:Puzzled by PDP1134 · · Score: 1
      I've been involved in political call centers for a number of years and can agree with just about everything you've said. Unfortunately, there is a change taking place in our society. People are spending more and more time online, wasting time on things (slashdot excluded of course) that are meaningless. They are more and more connected, with hardly anyone failing to carry a cell phone or a PDA. They'll talk for hours about meaningless things that five years ago weren't worth picking up the phone for. They waited until the next time they saw the person.

      On the flip-side, people are less interested in what is actually going on in the world and become offended at things that shouldn't offend them. Their immediate reaction is that they have been violated in some way and to think about (or suggest) legal action. Why should someone be offended when they are asked for their opinion? Why would they lie (or propose to others that they lie) about their opinions? Why aren't they glad that they've been reminded to vote, regardless of whether the person who's campaign called them is the one they were planning on voting for?

      People used to like to be asked their opinions. People used to like to be reminded to vote. They actually wanted to vote and believed it was important. Now very few people vote and many that vote consider it to be a "chore" and not something important.

      To those that say you can take legal action: you can't (at least not in the US). Political organizations are exempt from the do not call laws, but if you ask them to take you off their list they usually will -- assuming that the person calling you bothers to report that information back to the party. What you need to do is ask them if they are calling from the political party or a campaign. Campaigns never bother to report do not call requests back to the party. A party volunteer might.

      The problem is that many campaigns pay for automated calling services. While this may get their message out in a very short period of time, there is no feedback. The "old fashioned" method of having volunteers call is still used and is still effective. Unfortunately in many areas of the country the campaigns do not coordinate calling so you get a call from candidate A running for congress, followed by candidate B (same party) running for the statehouse, then candidate C running for city council, ad-nauseum.

      By that time, another volunteer who has a duplicate sheet with your name on it calls back for candidate A, but this time the person calling you is from the local party and not the campaign. Then the first campaign volunteer fails to return his or her sheet, so the campaign gives another person the same list and you get yet another call. And then right before election day the campaign decides to have everyone called one more time by an automated system.

      The candidate really doesn't want to get you upset. Where they fail is in not making sure that the person calling you knows what he or she is doing. Someone who just reads the script and doesn't listen to you can be hurting the campaign without knowing it.

  40. a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm volunteering locally (Idaho's 1st District) for the Democratic Party. A few nights ago I called people for the first time after having only gone door-to-door beforehand. Let me share my perspective...

    First, I'm not doing any fundraising, over the phone or in person. I am doing polling, and if people are inclined to vote Democratic or they don't know about our candidates we're going to send them some mail and ask them to vote for our candidates. If the people are Republicans and will vote for the Republican nominees--we don't want to waste our time and money. I'm a political science major and I could get into some hardcore theoretical stuff but it's late.

    Anyway. So I'm not doing fundraising. Our lists aren't bought from shady Internet types, or Radio Shack, or tire companies, or credit card companies--they're from public voter registration data. Voters need not include phone numbers when they register, and some don't.

    I hate to be an elitist, here. But to suggest that a good fuck-you answer when you're contacted is to tell the person you're going to vote for the other party, to say that out of spite, I don't want your vote, anyway. I haven't been paid $1, in this land of $3/gal gasoline and my beat-up `89 Ford Tempo averaging 22mpg city. I have free minutes after 7pm but I'm paying $50/month for those free minutes. I am an unpaid volunteer working because I believe in the party. Have you no decency, sir? Are you so jaded that you refuse to believe anybody is ever acting in anything other than purely their own self-interest? Do you think that whoever's calling you, paid or not, asking for money or not--do you think you're really getting back at them if you vote for their opponent?

    I can only speak for myself but if someone strays from the questions I ask (which are purely "do you usually vote Democratic or Republican," "do you usually vote a straight ticket," "are you inclined or disinclined to support [candidate] for [office]," and if they're giving enthusiastic positive answers I'll ask if they'd like lawn signs for free) I respectfully acknowledge them with "that's fine" or "I understand." Sometimes I'll get people who want to talk my ear off, and I sometimes have to resort to a courteous "I'm afraid we're only doing polling on these specific questions tonight." Because we are. I have about eight lines, each with a name and the numbers 1-5. That's how I can put down your answer. I don't hang up on people, though I have been hung up on. I was once introducing myself and then somebody started talking over me and said "I'm not interested in donating any money." Before I could tell her I'm only doing polling--which, sincerely, I am--she'd hung up on me. Who's the asshole, here? The asshole who is asking Americans about their political beliefs or the asshole who's hanging up on somebody without letting the other person finish? It's no skin off my back. If someone tells me they don't vote, I'll thank them for their time and get off the phone.

    There's a particular set of bills that was passed a long time ago, these couple of amendments to the Constitution, and they guaranteed some freedoms: freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, some others. I'm getting in touch with my fellow Americans because I believe in the candidates and the platforms the Democratic Party of Idaho supports. I respect the beliefs of those who disagree. But it's my right and, I feel, my duty to support political candidates who I feel will do a better job. That's why I don't vote a straight ticket when I vote. Forgive me, but I personally believe that voting and being politically involved is virtuous.

    The solution to problems that freedom brings isn't less freedom, it's more. If you have no political convictions then I suggest you courteously tell them as much and ask to not be called anymore. If they insist then you can progress or hang up as you'd like. If you have political convictions, though, maybe you can just tell them you'd like to keep them confidential. I really don't know what to tell you. If you think they're slime then this is probably falling on deaf ears.

    --
    I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    1. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The solution to problems that freedom brings isn't less freedom, it's more.
      Funny how your freedom trumps my freedom to control my own phone.

      If you have no political convictions then I suggest you courteously tell them as much and ask to not be called anymore.
      And if you have political convictions you are required to receive annoying phone calls?

    2. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm getting in touch with my fellow Americans because I believe in the candidates and the platforms the Democratic Party of Idaho supports. I respect the beliefs of those who disagree. But it's my right and, I feel, my duty to support political candidates who I feel will do a better job.

      And if it were you alone, it wouldn't be an issue, even for reclusive /.ers. The problem is that each of us lives in a US Senate district, a US House district, a state Senate and House district, a county commission district, a school board district, (generally) a city council district, under the jurisdiction of numerous judges, secretaries, and other elected officials. Many of those offices have multiple candidates, each of whom feel exactly the same as you. A single, polite poll or call once in a while is reasonably well tolerated and easy to forgive-it's when it turns into eight calls a night during the week preceeding an election that it gets annoying.

      Freedom of speech is given to everyone, and from my perspective, there are a lot more speakers than listeners. I really don't have time to listen to what each of my 300,000,000 fellow citizens has to say. Why do I waste my time? You won't even listen to me: communication with the politically active is strictly one-way.

    3. Re:a word from an insider by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, you fucking moron, it's NOT your right to call and disturb people who don't wish to be disturbed by you, or to eat up the minutes they paid for in order to do it.

      There's a fundamental natural right that trumps anything the Constitution or case law might say you can do, and it's called "the right to be left alone". Leave people the fuck alone!

      You can believe and your cause and support your party all you wish, just so long as it doesn't involve infringing upon my natural right to be left the fuck alone.

      People like you truly disgust me. Your argument is no better than when the telemarketers bitched about losing their "right to free speech" when the Do Not Call list was enacted. Sorry, but my right to be left alone trumps your right to free speech, so fuck you.

      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    4. Re:a word from an insider by maxume · · Score: 1

      So someone I don't know calls me for their purposes, often at an inconvenient time, and it's rude if I hang up? Right. I have a telephone so that I can talk to certain people and so that they can talk to me. Ignoring people who attempt to subvert this purpose for their own gain is not rude, it is the reasonable thing to do.

      Also, if you are volunteering to make phone calls, don't bitch about not getting paid, it makes you look like even more of an idiot than your average poly-sci major.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:a word from an insider by mystik · · Score: 1
      I was once introducing myself and then somebody started talking over me and said "I'm not interested in donating any money." Before I could tell her I'm only doing polling--which, sincerely, I am--she'd hung up on me. Who's the asshole, here? The asshole who is asking Americans about their political beliefs or the asshole who's hanging up on somebody without letting the other person finish?

      The assholes are the other telemarketing companies, who put their employees under intense pressure to get the pitch out no matter what. I know I have been totally desensitized to marketing calls, that I say my good byes, and not interested, and immediately hang up the call without waiting for any response the the other end.. 9 times out of 10 I'm hanging up on someone who is not interested on disconnecting the call, and tries to keep going. To those 1 our of 10 that are polite enough to acknowledge that I don't care, I apologize, but the rest of the industry is bringing you down.

      --
      Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
    6. Re:a word from an insider by bziman · · Score: 1

      I'm happy to talk to you, as a human being, but if you use a predictive dialer and an automated recorded message, it's going to piss me off, and I will call the campaign office and express my extreme displeasure.

    7. Re:a word from an insider by OSXCPA2 · · Score: 1

      What exactly is 'Political Science' ? Is politics in fact a science, or is it applying scientific methods (statistical analysis, etc.) to politics? Is this the science that tells politicians to listen to polls, sway in the wind, voters are herd animals, 'energizing the base with inflammatory rhetoric' is a good idea, etc.

      Freedom of speech, etc. does not include the right to bother people. Going door-to-door is fine - you can see my 'no solicitors' sign and stay away. Calling my unlisted number via autodialer is deliberately circumventing my paid efforts to avoid talking to advocates like you. You may be a great, virtuous person, but if you have the 'right' to call me, so does the American Nazi party. Not going to play that one.

      Try putting up a nice website with clear platforms, etc and include a 'question' email so I can ask you specific questions about your platforms and specific bills you want, and what pork you will not take, and make sure you answer my questions, and I'll vote for your candidate. Otherwise, stay off my radar, out of my yard, off my bandwidth, and away from me. You are *not* welcome in my space.

    8. Re:a word from an insider by Shihar · · Score: 1

      I don't hang up on people, though I have been hung up on. I was once introducing myself and then somebody started talking over me and said "I'm not interested in donating any money." Before I could tell her I'm only doing polling--which, sincerely, I am--she'd hung up on me. Who's the asshole, here? The asshole who is asking Americans about their political beliefs or the asshole who's hanging up on somebody without letting the other person finish? It's no skin off my back. If someone tells me they don't vote, I'll thank them for their time and get off the phone.

      I do hang up on telemarketers in the middle of their sentences (political or otherwise) often, let me share why. When I call someone for anything, I let them answer the phone, and then a give a very brief one or two sentence reason why I am calling. This is polite. You don't spend a minute talking the second someone picks up the phone and says hello. You have called ME. You are wasting MY time. If you try and shove your message down my throat with a minute long opening speech, I am just going to hang up. If you BRIEFLY tell me what the hell it is you want, I am far more inclined to stay on the line.

      Further, should I decide that I really am not in the mood to deal with a telemarketer, I will merrily just say "not interested" in the middle of their little speech and hang up. I do this because I have learned that it is utterly impossible to interrupt these people without screaming, and saying "not interested" will ALWAYS result in a failure to end the conversation.

      Finally, the reason why I tend to always hang up is because telemarketers, especially political telemarketers have absolutely no information of value to give. If I wanted to hear a one sided report on your candidate, I would go read your candidates website. Personally, I don't want to be "informed" about you, by you. What I want is to see the candidates present their ideas then directly rebut their opponents ideas in a debate format. Throw up a full clip or MP3 of a debate your candidate had with the opponent, and I will happily listen.

      Start a conversation over the phone with me by saying something inane like, "Did you know that the Senator So and So is being paid off by big oi..." *click*

    9. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm a big believer in political activism myself, but I don't condone telemarketing. Why? Because telemarketing invades the sanctity of my home.

      If you want to stand on public street corners and hand out pamphlets, that's fine. There was a guy standing in front of the Whole Foods the other day, on a petition drive. I stopped to chat, and we talked politics for awhile. I even offered to help him collect signatures. But when you make my phone ring, inside my home, when I didn't ask you to, then you have invaded my privacy.

      • I don't care whether you want money or not, that's not the point.
      • I don't care if you don't know how many people in your district will vote Democrat. I don't sanction you to project your ignorance into my house.
      • I don't care if you aren't paid to call me. That's a choice you made, not me.
      • I don't care that you got your list from public voter registration data. My phone is ringing anyway.
      You have a First Amendment right to speak, but you don't have a right to make someone listen to your speech, and you sure don't have the right to barge into their home to do it. When you call my phone, you are depriving me of the quiet enjoyment of my property. That's being a nuisance, and I don't approve.

      As you say, have you no decency, sir?

    10. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who's the asshole, here? The asshole who is asking Americans about their political beliefs or the asshole who's hanging up on somebody without letting the other person finish?

      It's you. You interrupted somebody's good time in order to pester them with questions. Listening to somebody's question and giving a well thought-through answer is a favour.

    11. Re:a word from an insider by vitaflo · · Score: 1

      I am an unpaid volunteer working because I believe in the party. Have you no decency, sir? Are you so jaded that you refuse to believe anybody is ever acting in anything other than purely their own self-interest?

      But you are acting in your own self interest, or that of your party. Listen, if every jackass felt like they had the right to call me because they really believe in [insert item here] my phone would be ringing non stop. Why do you think your cause is any better than the 5 million others out there? It's not, it's just important to *you*.

      Serously, for such a "progressive" party you sure do use some archaic ways to reach out to people.

    12. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      Well, I disagree with you on where the demarcation of freedom is.

      If you don't think that democratic government is worthwhile then we don't have anything to talk about. I'm not denying you your right to control your own phone. I know a guy who wraps his cell phone in aluminum foil except when he's expecting a call or wants to make a call. Many do not answer their phones, or screen their calls whether by answering machine or voicemail or simply not answering when the number is unknown to them. I'm not spoofing my phone number, I'm not saying I'm anybody except who I am.

      Nobody's required to wait patiently for another to finish their sentences on the phone, nobody's required to answer their phone. Whether my calls are annoying or not is firmly in the mind of the recipient. If somebody tells me they're a hardcore Republican and they're voting for Otter for governor and Risch for lt. governor then the party isn't going to call or mail them again, and this poll, which takes less than two minutes, will be the last time they're contacted. If one's a Democrat and will support LaRocco and Brady for lt. gov and gov, then they can get some signs for free, which maybe they would've wanted and not otherwise been able to get.

      America and American democracy was founded on the notion that people should be engaged in their government.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    13. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Fucking moron," huh. I don't have a J.D. yet, but I believe that's an argumentum ad hominem.

      It is, in fact, my right to call people and to knock on their doors. Similarly they have a right to not answer their phone (if they're concerned about per-minute charges), and they have a right to not answer their door, and they have a right to hang up, and they have a right to slam the door in my face. They don't have a right to censor my beliefs, they don't have a right to assault me. They do have a right to their own beliefs.

      If you don't think that a freedom of speech right held by telemarketers is different at all from the right to petition one's countrymen for better government, maybe you should try petitioning China or North Korea or Saudi Arabia for citizenship. Oh, wait, you espouse a right to be left alone. Sorry, I don't know what to recommend to you, then. Maybe there's some vacancies in Canada, or Greenland, or the Antarctic.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    14. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      I think it's discourteous. You may disagree. Here's an example of the beginning a phone call from me:

      (ring)
      "Hello?"
      "Hi, is this Carl Weathers?"
      "Yes, it is."
      "Hi, Carl. My name is Marcus. I'm a volunteer with the Idaho Democratic Party and I wonder if I may ask you a few quick questions."

      At this point Carl may respond with a curt "no" and hang up if he so pleases, as some do. No sooner than I had said "Democratic" to this one lady than did she interrupt me with an "I'm not interested in donating any money" and then hung up on me. I'm not doing fundraising, I"m doing polling. I will refuse to do fundraising over the phone to registered voters. If somebody's a registered Democrat and they're contributed in the past I may change my mind. But that's a hypothetical. I thought it was discourteous. I don't think it's discourteous to call someone and ask about political issues. I'm not doing automated dialing, the lists are from the list of registered voters. I call during the evening because that's when people are home. I do not call after 8:00. Ignoring my calls is your right, as is hanging up on me... as is being discourteous. I think we're basically on common ground here with maybe some ideological differences. I'm not interested in speaking to people at inconvenient times. I don't wish to interrupt your dinner. I do wish to ask your opinion. If you wouldn't like me to do that then say so. I'm forthright, I'll comply with reasonable requests, but if I may call back at a better time I would like to. That's all.

      I didn't mean to complain that I'm not getting paid. If that were an issue I wouldn't be doing this; I thought that was apparent or at least implicit. What I'm saying is I'm not paid to call or visit people, I'm doing it because of personal conviction. Whether that makes me more or less virtuous is your opinion.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    15. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      I don't know if your PS question is sincere or not. I suppose it may be but a simple Google query would give you an OK answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Science My university offers both a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor of Arts in Poli-Sci, which I realize sounds somewhat ridiculous. The B.S. deals a lot with statistical and research methods, whereas the B.A. only deals with those on an introductory level. The B.A. might be more accurately termed "government studies"; international studies, history of politics, and public administration are related fields.

      I don't use an automated dialer. I don't dial phone numbers that are not made public by the registered voter. Like I've said elsewhere, I'm not interested in talking to people who wouldn't like to be talked to.

      It's a long-established right to be able to contact people. I mean, it's an opt-out kind of thing, necessarily. In my opinion it's right that I am entitled to share my opinion with people unless they tell me they wouldn't like to hear it on their phone or at their house. People are free to not answer their phones, or doors, or to hang up, or to slam their door in my face, or to install guard posts or signs that read "no trespassing" or "authorized personnel only" or whatnot. If upon a phone call or door-to-door visit you make it clear you would like no further contact that's your right and I'm obliged to comply. If I do not it's your right to petition the government to intervene. But like I said. I don't want to talk to people who don't want to be talked to. There are people who would like to be talked to, or don't mind it, at least. I don't have a better way to differentiate the two than what people tell me.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    16. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you don't think that democratic government is worthwhile then we don't have anything to talk about.
      Where in the HELL did that come from? The government is only democratic if I let Democrats call my home phone??

      I'm not denying you your right to control your own phone.
      Mighty big of you. How about supporting an extension to the No Call list to include political hacks like yourself? See, that would be me controlling who is calling my phone. It works well for other telemarketers.

      Many do not answer their phones, or screen their calls whether by answering machine or voicemail or simply not answering when the number is unknown to them.
      Oh, I see, I can control my phone in ways that you allow. Why do I want a phone if I'm not going to answer it? You can't screen calls with voicemail like you could with answering machines. I sometimes get important calls from unfamilar numbers.

      Whether my calls are annoying or not is firmly in the mind of the recipient.
      Bingo. Your calls are annoying to me. Stop it.

      I notice thdexter doesn't supply his phone number so we can have a nice political talk. Go ahead, list your number here. You can always not answer it or hang up if you don't want me to call, but the least you can do is provide the number in support of our democratic government.

      America and American democracy was founded on the notion that people should be engaged in their government.
      That doesn't mean I have to take your stupid calls to be engaged. In any case, political participation is a right, not a duty.

    17. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      That's fair. Thanks for the comment.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    18. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      Similarly they have a right to not answer their phone...

      Differentiate for me, if you will, the right to not answer my phone vs the right to hang up my phone because I don't wish to speak to you and/or speak into it anyway I like.

      I'll wait...

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    19. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      America and American democracy was founded on the notion that people should be engaged in their government.

      Careful. You're confusing "engaged in their governemnt" with "engaged in their political party." You are calling based on a single party or candidate affiliation. Perhaps I am already well-versed in your candidate because I am quite "engaged" and that is why I am hostile to your "affiliation" using me as a statistic to further his or her own cause.

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    20. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to. I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to. I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to.

      Some people might find my call an important call from an unfamiliar number. You do not. It's an opt-out system; the Do-Not-Call list is an opt-in system. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found the Do-Not-Call list constitutional. If it was to regulate political calls--which the bill, as you know, does not cover--there would be 1st Amendment issues raised, namely, that freedom of speech shall not be infringed by Congress. The right to talk to people and ask them to buy things is a different right than the right to talk to people about political issue, per the decision. An amendment to the Constitution would likely be required.

      Nice ad hominem, too. Because I don't personally advertise my cell phone number to Slashdot... ...my arguments lack merit. No, that doesn't logically follow. Debate me on the merits of my arguments. I feel I'm correct. My email address is listed right there. I'd sooner talk on the phone with the registered Constitution party than I would talk with some guy who called me a political hack on the Internet. on Slashdot.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    21. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you use a standard marketing tactic of not identifying yourself until the 2nd exchange. You could have said:

      Hi, this is Marcus with the blah blah. May I please speak with Carl?

      You KNOW why you don't do that. You would be hung up on much sooner and more frequently.

      Plus, the simple arrogance of expecting courtesy when YOU interrupted ME. Astounding. My hanging up, or swearing at you, is my replying to your uninvited interruption with the same level of care you used when interrupting me.

      You pulled my number out of a list or a system. You know nothing about me except how I registered. You don't know if you are interrupting my dinner and you have no family or friendship context to feel remorse if you are. You can actually DO nothing for me. You cannot make my life any easier. You are offering me nothing in exchange for my time except for the joy of being a faceless data point (I'll use my data point when it counts ... by voting). I knew all of this about you by the 3rd syllable in the word Democratic.

      A friend or family member has earned the right to interrupt me. You have not. Take your lumps.

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    22. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to (x3)

      And yet here you are engaging in a conversation with someone who doesn't want to talk to you. Noting the problem, yet?

      You can rattle on about what law means what to whom. Fact: You have NO RIGHT to make me listen to you. How I choose not to listen is my business. Suck it up.

      So you volunteer. Pat yourself on the back. Now consider the impact of your volunteerism. Do you annoy people on the phone to gather data for your candidate affiliation? Or do you set up an information table near the courthouse and gather data from volunteers (ones not bothered in their homes) in a less intrusive manner? You made a choice. You chose the one that annoyed people so much, a law was passed to give them Opt-In access to a system to reduce annoyances. I know, I know. You'll point out the political exception to that. Pointing out that exception repeatedly just proves you are not interested in the spirit of the law. People don't like to be called randomly. Amazing, really, that you tout the DNC legislation as your modus operandi when most people would, if the law allowed, opt out of getting calls from people like you. Poll on that. Or not. Simply use your hang up/rude comment data to make a shiny graph.

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    23. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      That's fair, and I essentially agree. I could get into what I do but I don't imagine you're interested. Anyway, thanks for the comment.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    24. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      I am certainly not an automated recorded message nor do I employ a predictive dialer; as mentioned the phone numbers I have are from lists of registered voters. I've said elsewhere in this thread--I'm not interested in talking to people that don't want to talk to me. If one doesn't want to be contacted, we don't want to contact them. That's only sensible.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    25. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      3 * { I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to. }
      Then you need to find a way to identify people who want to be talked to first. Maybe you could call people who signed up to be bothered. (Not a very long list, is it?) Maybe there could be an opt-out list like No Call. You don't seem to really care though, else you'd stop calling strangers.

      the Do-Not-Call list is an opt-in system
      No, you've got that backwards. It is an opt-out system. It is annoying to have to opt-out, but better than all the telemarketing calls.

      An amendment to the Constitution would likely be required.
      I doubt that, but I'd welcome an amendment to the Constitution that would help protect my privacy. I note that, despite First Amendment concerns, I'm not allowed to use a megaphone to express my political views while walking down the street.

      Because I don't personally advertise my cell phone number to Slashdot... ...my arguments lack merit.

      No, but it does make a point and labels you as a hypocrite. Somehow it is a problem if I call you, but not a problem if you call me. Think of Democracy!

      I'd sooner talk on the phone with the registered Constitution party than I would talk with some guy who called me a political hack on the Internet.
      So can you not answer, screen my call, use voice mail, hang up or wrap your phone in aluminum foil. I see you get to choose which political parties are acceptable to call you, but I have no control over my phone. You don't get it because (so far) political calls aren't making it to your cell phone. Since that isn't in the Constitution either, it is only a matter of time until you get flooded with calls and you'll still be happy right?

    26. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      I don't want to talk to people who don't want to be talked to.

      You keep using those words. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      It's a long-established right to be able to contact people.

      Prove it. I'll throw privacy backatcha.

      Your argument strays from "please be polite to me, I'm only a volunteer," to "I have a right." Politeness cannot be demanded, it can only be requested though usually it is earned (hint: you didn't earn it simply by dialing my number). A right is something else entirely. You have yet to establish your right to make me listen to you AT ALL.

      Your situation is voluntary (and within your rights). My handling of your call is voluntary (and within my rights). You made a choice of questionable politeness (here's where you'll try to counter proving again that you don't get the core point). I respond in kind. You had speech you wanted heard based on your powerful political convictions. I responded with speech (or not) as is my right and I definitely wanted you to receive MY message in whatever form I delivered it. We have communicated. Mine was probably more direct and effective than yours. You may have just pushed the "call again" button out of spite meaning you UNDERSTOOD the message and chose a hostile action rather than retaining your honor and doing the right thing and removing me from your list. Or maybe you DID do the right thing. Thank you!

      If you want the voice of the people to satisfy your polling data, but you're getting hung up on a lot, then you probably aren't hearing the voice of the people saying what they REALLY want you to hear. How typically political.

      Does your strong political activism, volunteerism, and involvement extend to protecting my right to hang up on you rudely and decide to whom I speak and how? Why not?

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    27. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      Um, I identify myself after I've confirmed that the person I meant to call is who I have on the line. Is that not sensible? I'm only calling registered voters. I'm not registering voters right now, and I don't have a framework to deal with data from nonregistered voters. If one is not a registered voter I can presume they don't plan to vote. The only way for me to know the phone numbers of unregistered voters is to cold-call, as from an autodialer. I have no interest in doing that.

      Idaho, for what it's worth, doesn't force one to register with a party upon registering to vote. All I know is what one registers with: name, address, phone number, age, sex, sometimes not a phone number.

      I don't know what to tell you, neonfrog, because it seems we have fundamentally different beliefs. I'm not talking about a Democrat/Republican or Democrat/Libertarian or Democrat/Socialist divide, but I find justification for what I do and you do not. You're right about an absence family and friendship context, but I'm a person, and I have friends and family and I eat dinner. I don't wish to interrupt dinner and I ask for forgiveness if I do. Sometimes--gee--I don't even answer my phone while I'm eating or talking with people, especially if the number is unknown to me. I may suggest you and others do the same.

      Here's a thought: ALL PHONE CALLS ARE INTERRUPTIONS. The phone is inherently a discourteous device, because it has no manners, because we build them to simply ring when one dials their digits. That's how it is. If my university calls me about a course, or someone calls me because they hear I'm a good DJ, or someone knocks on my door because they want to know what kind of flowers I'm growing in my garden, I don't bite their heads off for it. If I am indisposed then I strive to politely excuse myself.

      About your other comments:
      As it stands we have a government made of political parties. James Madison wished it wouldn't. Alas. That's the current context of the system. Political parties are meant to lubricate involvement with government.

      Differentiate the right to not answer your phone vs the right to hang up your phone... um, I'm sorry? You have a right to both. You have a right to say my mother sucks dicks in Hell. You don't have a right to threaten me. You don't have a right to punch me in the face. You have a right to expect I'll leave you alone if you ask me to, and I will respect that right. But until I'm asked to I will engage you because I believe in the merits of my political party and its candidates.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    28. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      (note: I said this deeper in the thread, but it seemed better placed right here)

      she'd hung up on me. Who's the asshole, here?

      Does your strong political activism, volunteerism, and involvement extend to protecting my right to hang up on you rudely and decide to whom I speak and how? Why not?

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    29. Re:a word from an insider by kernelpanicked · · Score: 1

      "If someone tells me they don't vote, I'll thank them for their time and get off the phone."

      But I thought you said you only called registered voters. Give me a break.

      --
      Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
    30. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      Um, I identify myself after I've confirmed that the person I meant to call is who I have on the line.

      Polite. Courteous. Nice. And a telemarketing tactic. The longer a person is kept on the phone, the more "indebted" they feel to stay on the phone. It can be an evil use of give and take. I'm not saying you are evil. I am saying you're methodolgy has long legs in another industry that is virtually indistinguishable from yours. Know how you appear.

      I asked a simple question: can you use MY tactic of identifying yourself first and still have success? My method is EVEN MORE POLITE. What prevents you from either trying it, or even intellectually assessing it here in this forum?

      ALL PHONE CALLS ARE INTERRUPTIONS.

      How very true. Now keep going with it. The interuption is generally allowed for friends, family, established business relationships, etc. Of course I can choose to not answer during dinner. Or at all. BUT IF I DO choose to answer, then you, the political caller, do not know WHY I chose to answer. Maybe I'm expecting a call about that ad I placed in the paper to give away free kittens. If I hang up on you, then you can be reasonably assured that my reason for answering the phone was NOT to talk to YOU. You can also be fairly sure that your kind of call is the LEAST welcome form of interruption based solely on how I handled your call.

      You also don't know WHY I put my number on the register in the first place. Maybe it was because I thought I had to, to vote. Maybe I was just filling out the form like a diligent American without understanding the repercussions of my actions. Now I'm annoyed that it is there. Maybe I even LIKE political surveys ... just not right now because my wife and I just had a fight and I thought you were her calling back to make up.

      Eventually you will grow tired of being hung up on. Your spirit may call into question your methods. Perhaps you will find a more fulfilling way to be a part of the process and your spirit will be happier that you no longer have to use nefarious methods (as bespoken to you in a very democratic manner by all those who hung up on you).

      Just because you CAN use the phone to interrupt, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Answer that question for yourself, and for those you are calling. If you don't agree, then revel in the diversity and let democracy reign.

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    31. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The only way for me to know the phone numbers of unregistered voters is to cold-call, as from an autodialer. I have no interest in doing that.

      Oh, I see, this is all a misunderstanding. You aren't cold-calling, you are calling people who specified they'd like to be contacted about your candidate. Why didn't you say so? I thought you were just annoying random people who registered to vote. I apologize for thinking you were the scum of the earth.

    32. Re:a word from an insider by calyxa · · Score: 1

      ""If someone tells me they don't vote, I'll thank them for their time and get off the phone.""
      "But I thought you said you only called registered voters. Give me a break."

      There are TONS of people who are registered voters who do not vote. That's how we have statistics such as "24% voter turn-out."

      --
      Decay! Decay! Decay! -Helium
    33. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      The most valuable information the GP gave you was that you are annoying by association before you even get to the meat of the matter (poll, not pitch). That is not a personal attack on you, it is simply a statement of fact. That fact alone should get you thinking about re-evaluating the efficacy of your methodology.

      If you strongly believe that volunteering and data-gathering are important political ventures, then perhaps you should consider a different data-gathering method if association or perception are important to you. If they are not important to you then you understand that rude hang-ups are just a form of speech and don't take it personally. Behaving otherwise just means you are wearing blinders to the reality of the situation and/or do not have the thickness of skin needed for your job. It happens.

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    34. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      I'm lost on the political party direction your comment took. I've not once mentioned that. You have me confused with someone else.

      You have a right to expect I'll leave you alone if you ask me to, and I will respect that right. But until I'm asked to I will engage you ...

      You have a gift for language. Maybe I don't. I just asked you, by swearing at you and hanging up rather than with Emily Post, to disengage. Since you're so smart, I also hope that you'll read my emotions and actions and make a determination about disengaging yourself, rather than just blathering on until I "use the magic words." It would be sensible for you to do that, yes? Or are you the type to follow me thtough the park, as I hold my hand up and try to run away, yelling about your candidate's favorite issue as if it should be more important to me than air? Boy, I sure hope not. Then you may have earned your punch in the nose (legally!).

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    35. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      Give me a break, that's what I want to say when people throw that at me. But I don't, I thank them for their time and hang up. I don't know why their names are on the registered voter rolls, but I am 100% certain that that's where my data comes from. Maybe they registered once to vote for a particular amendment or proposition, or somebody cajoled them into registering eight years ago, or they registered when they bought their house. It's happened.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    36. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      If you hadn't already divined I have already found justification for doing this. I agree with you, as I've said--being hung up on is legitimate. I have a box that I check to notify the data enterer that this person would not like to be contacted any further. But I think it's discourteous and I used a rhetorical device earlier; I think I'm doing something justifiable and going about it in a justifiable manner. You disagree. Fine. My methodology's efficacy isn't something I know figures about. I'm a student of science, but I am not a scientist. The national, state and local parties do employ scientists and they've directed me to do this. There are people with whom I've shared literature or opinions and there are people who have eagerly requested campaign signs. I do not believe they view what I do as an intrusion, or if they do, it seems to be a welcome one.

      If I'm hung up on or called an asshole or interrupted and told they're not interested I check the box that signifies to not contact the person again. I don't redial upon being hung up on. I had some friends in high school who worked at telephone survey places, and they would call people back if they were hung up on. I do not. I've been asked to hold and consequently hung up on; I don't call back in those situations, either.

      We have another fundamental disagreement. You believe calling a stranger for a politial cause is inherently impolite. I disagree. In my weltanschauung if I am treated politely I am obliged to treat one with politeness; I find what I am doing polite-neutral but I go about it on the phone politely, so I would like to be treated with dignity. If I'm not obliged I'm not going to start crying and be temporarily disabled.

      You mention privacy in regard to my mention of freedom of speech and assembly. You say "prove it," and that you'll throw privacy at me. Not to be a nitpick but I am operating within the law in doing this. Don't you suppose there have been lawsuits? Stratton, Ohio was sick of Jehovah's Witnesses going door-to-door so they forced anybody who wished to talk to their neighbors to get a permit from the mayor. The Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision, with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist the sole dissenter (O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer in the majority), found the provision unconstitutional.

      snip: "It is offensive - not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society - that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." Here's a page on freedom of speech and expression, which notes that political speech is an elevated kind of speech insofar as protection goes. Whereas I may be prohibited from calling you to ask about satellite dish installation, calling you to ask about political figures is permissible until you signify to me it is not. That's the law.

      As it so happens I don't find much people hanging up on me. I would estimate the figure at less than five percent.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    37. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      Are you a resident of Idaho? If you are (maybe you can fax or email me your voter registration card) then I will supply you my phone number--there's nothing on the national ballot this year. You can call to ask about my views, or to support candidates. I'll tell you I'm not interested and hang up. You'll grant me the same courtesy I would grant anyone and not call me back. Personally I'd rather not go through the Kabuki theater.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    38. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      I think yours is the first reply to not implicitly or explicitly attack me.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    39. Re:a word from an insider by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 1
      you can fax or email me your voter registration card
      Fair enough. That is the procedure in Idaho then, you send a copy of your voter registration card to everyone before you call them, right? With such an enlightened procedure in your state, I now understand why you are confused by my outrage over political calls. You see, in my state, any moron can pick up a phone and call me about politics. Heck, they won't even give their real number or name after I pick up, let alone sending me credentials before the call. Most of the calls are even automated recordings, which of course I'm sure your candidate in Idaho wouldn't consider doing. I think I'll move to Idaho.

      Just for fun, you could go ahead and post your phone number here, and I'm sure a number of people would be happy to provide you with political opinions to consider. That way you could see what the rest of us go through every election. Yeah, there might be a lot of calls, but you already know how to hang up and everything.

      I'll tell you I'm not interested and hang up.
      I'm shocked that you are prejudging my political views; I think you'll find them facinating.

    40. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think yours is the first reply to not implicitly or explicitly attack me.

      You forgot to wear your "I'm a telemarketer -- Kiss me!" button today.

    41. Re:a word from an insider by OSXCPA2 · · Score: 1

      My reply on PS was snarky. Inappropriately so, if I expected a courteous, sincere response (which I got) - so I apologize for the tone of that part of my reply.

      As far as your right to contact vs. mine to not be contacted, I think it breaks down to active versus passive. You may share your opinions on the web, for all to see. I may or may not read them and/or reply. You do not have a right to 'push content' unless I request it. So, if I ask to be contacted, you may call me, etc. If I do not, the most you can do is go to a public space (town square, internet, etc.) and speak to your hearts' content. However, trespassing on my property to knock on my door, especially with clearly posted signs indicating my unwillingness to be contacted, or calling my home at whatever hour you deem appropriate is not by any means a right, and I would challenge you to provide a precedent for such a right. The closest I could find was Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, wherein the Supreme Court said that in effect, the government could not impose a tax on door-to-door petitioners (in this case Jehovas' Witneeses). The reasoning was that, "Door-to-door speech is a time-honored, valuable way for citizens to communicate with each other. The ordinance simply affects too much speech. Requiring a permit to go door-to-door to communicate religious and political speech "constitutes a dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition." Plus, phone calls are in may ways more intrusive than door-to-door, due to their nature - one person can sit in comfort and 'bother' thousands of people, even without an auto-dialer. You state you don't call nonlisted numbers. If you are just calling a preexisting list of people who have indicated they want to hear from you, what is the problem?

      This says, to me, that the government can't restrict the speech, but does not give the speaker the right to speak to me if I have taken steps (posting a sign, etc.) to not be spoken to.

      You assert "In my opinion it's right that I am entitled to share my opinion with people unless they tell me they wouldn't like to hear it on their phone or at their house."

      I counter, it is not your right to actively speak to someone who has not asked for your opinions, unless they have asked for them or indicated a willingness to listen, especially in a private space (residence). If you wait for me to go for a walk in the Town Square, however, you may approach me and try to start up a discussion pretty much without limit, until I tell you to leave me alone or if I am wearing a sandwich board saying "Don't speak to me" or similar.

    42. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      I give my name and don't take any measures to protect my number (my personal cell phone number) when I call.

      I'm only calling registered Idaho voters, and that's all I'm defending, here. In fact, I'm only calling and visiting registered voters in my city. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - if you're a resident of Idaho's 1st Congressional District I'll give you my phone number.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    43. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      Well, the burden of proof lies on the person who says it's against the law, not the guy who says it's lawful.

      Your bit about intrusiveness strikes me as counterintuitive: the measure of intrusiveness shouldn't be on how easy it is to do but by how much the person on the receiving end is burdened. A phone call vs. a doorknock (or doorbell ring), at reasonable hours--I don't think there's a material difference. I may be mistaken in this. I don't know what the legal force behind "no soliciting" signs are if any, and if political or religious visits would infringe on any legal precedents. The people I'm calling have not expressed a desire to speak with anybody on whose behalf I'm talking, they're merely registered voters. I regret if that wasn't clear. Earlier I somewhat-misleadingly used the term "cold call," which is in a sense what I am doing--there's no preexisting business or personal relationship. I mean to say that I'm not picking numbers out of a phone book.

      IANAL. But to suggest that trespassing such as I have admitted to doing, in person and on the phone, is illegal is to suggest tens or hundreds of thousands of politicians and missionaries and salesmen do so every day and have done so for decades. Common sense dictates trespass law is not so broad. What I've found after some cursory research is that most of the time in America for trespassers to be prosecuted they must be asked to leave. If they do not the police may be called in. Re the case you cite, the problem wasn't a tax (though that would be a problem) on door-to-door communication, but that one had to register to go door-to-door at all. The permits were free, in fact. I did point to that case in another reply to a comment here.

      Lots of heated argument against me. You're very levelheaded, which I appreciate, and I apologize if I'm here ineloquent or haven't wholly addressed the matters here presented, but it's about the best I can do right now.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    44. Re:a word from an insider by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 1
      I give my name and don't take any measures to protect my number
      That is good, I wish that were true for the people who are calling me. You've obviously thought about what you think is fair -- and while I don't agree with how you've decided to contact people, your methods are much better than what I have to deal with. And that is the problem: I'm at your mercy about how you decide to limit your calls to me.

      if you're a resident of Idaho's 1st Congressional District I'll give you my phone number
      Thanks, but I'm not a resident. The issue is not a single phone call, it is the aggregate of all the calls, with several candidates calling multiple times.

    45. Re:a word from an insider by OSXCPA2 · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I can only say two things:

      1. My own interpretations (IANAL) of what I have read on the supreme court interps. and my own predispositions lend me to the most 'liberal' interpretations of the Constitution. So, hard to admit, but I'll go with your reading, lacking any authoritative counterargument. Trespass, as far as I can tell, is in fact as you characterize it - to be illegal, you have to refuse to leave after being asked.

      2. If you were representative of those who would ask my political opinions, you'd be less obnoxious than most others.

      So, I have to (grudgingly) concede that your interpretation makes more sense than mine, although it still annoys the living crap out of me when I get a call from some political pollster who refuses to identify who they work for, except to tell me that they are exempt from the 'do not call' list, which I am on, and then presses me for information, etc. And I know full well that my name and phone number are thereafter listed in some database of 'live' phone numbers that can then be sold to whomever without my consent.

      Hence, if you call me, I may still be very, very rude. Sorry about that, but there are a lot of a$$holes out there.

    46. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      Well, that's fair. I wish I had a divining rod that could tell me who doesn't mind and who does. I try to have some humility in what I do and we're basically of the same opinion here. Thanks for your comments.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    47. Re:a word from an insider by wfberg · · Score: 1

      . I am an unpaid volunteer working because I believe in the party. Have you no decency, sir? Are you so jaded that you refuse to believe anybody is ever acting in anything other than purely their own self-interest? Do you think that whoever's calling you, paid or not, asking for money or not--do you think you're really getting back at them if you vote for their opponent?

      You're a phone spammer. You might not be motivated by greed, but you're still spamming. Yes, people will be pissed off at you, because you're interrupting them. Harassing them in their homes. That's hurting your party. But you still do it. Because you have some irrational belief that annoying people is good for the cause? You're still a spammer.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    48. Re:a word from an insider by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 1
      we're basically of the same opinion here

      The primary difference being that you actively disturb people at home without being invited, and he doesn't. Pretty close otherwise, since you agree that he may hang up on you.

      Why don't you switch over to sending spam? I can block that.

    49. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1



      Tread lightly. Legal does not mean polite. I never questioned the legality of your actions. Efficacy, sure. Shades of politeness, absolutely. But not legality.

      I _was_ trying to draw your intention to the spirit of a law. The spirit of free spech is that you are free to speak. It does not imply forced listening. The spirit of privacy is that generally, people prefer to be left alone. The spirit of DNC is that, generally, people who don't like unsolicited phone calls have a sanctuary. Here I will argue that the law's spirit is a bit messy - millions appreciated the creation of the DNC and I'd argue, with no data, that most of those would have appreciated being able to effectively stop political calls as well. The telephone is generally viewed as a communication device of consent. It is not the public square that, if I walk through it, I expect to hear just about anything. I expect to have a degree of control over my phone.

      Your world view is where I see the issue. You expect politeness to be returned. This is fair (though not necessarily honorable -- being polite as a matter or principle, with no expectance of reward, is a far greater strength. I'm not saying I have achieved such an amazing level myself!). But you show no remorse for your perceived impolite act. Calling it "polite-neutral" certainly pushes it into "polite-gray."

      You and I politely disagree. Many others attacked you impolitely. Add that to your own hang-up experience and you have a strong basis for understanding that there are many interpretations of the politeness level of placing an unsolicited, or simply unwanted, phone call.

      I think the gist of our discussion is not whether or not you should be placing these types of calls at all. It is the emotional toll of your distaste for rudeness after the call is answered. If you see gray areas of politeness and accept that some people think your call is rude by its very nature (nothing to do with you or your polite tone), but you still feel bitten (or at least sad resignation that the world can't be a better place) when they swear at you and hang up, then YOU have an issue to reconcile. Not them.

      But hey, I barely made it through High School so what do _I_ know...

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    50. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To add a bit on that, receiving telemarketing calls used to be like:

      marketer: Hi, is it Mr Foo ?
      me: Yes
      marketer: <long speech>
      me: I am not interested
      marketer: <read its script>
      me: I am not interested
      marketer: <continues the script>
      me: I am not interested

      then, more and more often:

      marketer: <why are you so unhelpfull ?>
      me: because you are calling me at home, during my dinner, with my wife and children, and I don't want to be disturbed at those very precious moments. I never gave you permission to phone me.
      marketer: <when can I contact you back ?>
      me (loosing my temper): Never. Forget about me. Leave me alone.
      marketer: <but, our offer is this and that>
      me (shouting): <go fuck yourself>
      marketer: <why are you angry, you...>
      me (interupting): <GO FUCK YOURSELF>

      And I hang up.

      Then, at this point, when I go back at the meal, I hate the whole world, and those very "precious moments" are gone.

      So, now discusion is:

      marketer: Hi, is it Mr Foo ?
      me: Yes
      marketer: <long speech>
      me: (interupting as soon as I know that the call is from a telemarketer) I am not interested, I don't want to talk with you, I want to be removed from your calling list. Thank you.

      And I hang up, and go back to whatever I was doing.

      Because if I don't hung up, I will go straight to the "<why are you so unhelpfull ?>" part of the script, and I don't want to shout over the phone.

    51. Re:a word from an insider by Eil · · Score: 1


      Bothering people at home with unsolicited calls after 7PM doesn't make you patriotic, it makes you a fucktard. I don't care if you're doing it for free or a million dollars, you deserve every hang-up and explitive you get.

    52. Re:a word from an insider by pjp6259 · · Score: 1

      Just curious where the Whole Foods is you were at. I was getting petitions signed outside the Whole Foods in Boulder, and the manager came out and said it was company policy not to allow that at their stores.

      --
      Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
    53. Re:a word from an insider by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      Funny how your freedom trumps my freedom to control my own phone.
      Explain how someone calling you robs you of your "freedom to control your phone." Does this freedom include the ability to not answer, or pick up and immediately hang up, or leaving the phone off the hook at hours when you can't be bothered with answering some simple questions? If so, how is parent using force to deprive you of this freedom?

      And if you have political convictions you are required to receive annoying phone calls?
      No, it's optional. That's the beauty of freedom.

    54. Re:a word from an insider by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      I notice thdexter doesn't supply his phone number
      That is hillarious. An ANONYMOUS COWARD -the mass of all who either don't bother to log in, or want to hide their identity- calling a logged individual out on not being forthcoming with his personal data that most (or all) folks don't share on slashdot. Comedy gold!

    55. Re:a word from an insider by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      And yet here you are engaging in a conversation with someone who doesn't want to talk to you.
      It seems to me that by replying to thdexter, the AC was making known that he did want to communicate to him, even if the idea he wanted to communicate was of how much AC didn't want to communicate with thdexter. Weird, no?

      Fact: You have NO RIGHT to make me listen to you.
      That may be true. Another is the fact that you don't have the right to shut him up. You can ask him to shut up (as doing so is an example of speech), but he has the right to choose whether or not he will do as you ask. If he chooses not to, then it is up to you to either continue talking with him change or the channel, surf elsewhere, and don't answer the phone.

      People don't like to be called randomly.
      Some people don't. Some really don't mind as much as you.

    56. Re:a word from an insider by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech is given to everyone, and from my perspective, there are a lot more speakers than listeners. I really don't have time to listen to what each of my 300,000,000 fellow citizens has to say. Why do I waste my time? You won't even listen to me: communication with the politically active is strictly one-way.
      That's interesting- how do you define "politically active"? If you define it as a politician, then you should expect your representative to respond to you when you voice your opinion to him or her. (If said politician does not respond then he or she is a bad representative and you should vote accordingly). However, if you define politically active as I think you do- someone who engages in the exchange of political ideas- then what do you call this discussion here? I call it more than one-way.

    57. Re:a word from an insider by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      Given that thdexter was unjustly marked Flamebait for his calm and rational response to your raging diatribe, I realize I am running a risk of being another victim of improper moderation. Nonetheless, I would like to also reply to your comment in a friendly manner if I may.

      See, thing is, in this day and age of technology and computers and cellular phones, there is danger in possessing means with which people can contact you. Like some instant messenger setups (where only those on your buddy list can see your online presense and contact you), some folks have a telephone system that only accepts phone calls from those on a trusted list of numbers and/or individuals; all other calls are blocked or sent to a voicemail or automated response system. Given that many cell phones actually send people to voicemail when you hang up on them, some folks have a simpler system and just hang up on any number they don't recognize, figuring if the caller really has anything to say that the callee should hear, the caller will either leave a message or call from a recognized number.

      Regarding your supposed right to not be bothered, the problem with this is how to enforce it. What constitutes being bothered? Is this thing that bothers you something that will bother everyone? This is one of the reasons why other real rights work- because they can be enforced. If someone tries to poll you on your political opinion, they may or may not annoy you. That "may not" part is what makes the "right to not be bothered" fit into a category I call "probably not a right." It may be something you strongly desire. I may strongly desire a pony, but I don't have a right to it. If I want it badly enough, I must take actions to get it, and in doing so I may have to forego other things I also want but want less. Likewise, if you want to not be bothered badly enough, you may have to forego some accessibility. I know it's a harsh reality. I feel like a heel having to tell you this, like the grown ups told me when I was a kid that a driver's license is not a right- that just doesn't seem correct, but it is the truth, hard as it may be to accept.

      Another way of looking at this: If someone tries to kill anyone, they are in violation of that person's right to life. End of story. No questions asked. Black and white. But what if the person being killed asked to be killed, assisted suicide, or what if the person being killed is being killed for killing another? This gets into forfeited rights. You forfeit the right to freedom if you kill someone. Likewise, IF you have the right to not be contacted by a phone by someone looking to poll you, you give this right up when you take actions that give your number to those calling you, like people registering to vote with the option to give their number on their voter registration (which you'll see, if you read up, is how thdexter got his calling list).

    58. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that by replying to thdexter, the AC was making known that he did want to communicate to him...

      Not weird. Information moved around. AC may have surfed off and never read a thing by thdexter ever again. But thdexter continued the conversation with someone that did not want to talk to him. There's a word for that, and sometimes it requires medication. ;-) Of course this is a public forum, and thdexter used it EXACTLY like it was designed to be used. I'm not debating that. I'm wondering if, when thdexter is dialing folk, he uses the same tactics? I'd say not, but when given evidence of people wanting to be left alone, and thdexter not leaving people alone, one has to wonder.

      We can argue here all day, but when the rubber hits the road (or the phone hits my ear) we play by THOSE rules. AC was informing thdexter of those rules. thdexter can debate them here until he is blue in the face, but when he is using the phone he needs to acknowledge the appropriate rule set.

      Another is the fact that you don't have the right to shut him up.

      Ahh, the meat of the matter. Yes I do have the right to hang up the phone and effectively shut him up -- and maybe even prosecute him for harassment if he keeps calling me when I've expressly told him to not to. /. is a public forum. By merely being here I expect to have to deal with goatse and GNAA trolls and even opinions contrary to mine (how dare they!). But my phone is not a public forum. I pay for it. I choose how to use it. thdexter can demand politeness all he wants, but he cannot reasonably expect to receive it every time (or at all, realistically) on a telephonic device.

      Some really don't mind as much as you.

      I'm glad he has consideration for them. Where is his consideration for me? If I'm just a statistic, then he really is acting strange by demanding my telephonic respect as I am not even an individual as far as he's concerned. He should get over it (my hanging up rudely in his ear) and move on.

      If he is treating our conversation as a one-on-one between 2 reasonable people (which he mostly is) then he needs to accept that his interruption is somtimes extremely distasteful. Again, understand the medium, suck it up, and move on. Demanding that we all mind our P's and Q's when he calls is rather, well, ridiculous!

      When you can't please all of the people all of the time, and you have a "thing" about it, then the problem is yours, not mine. Really. Yattering on about how things "should be," that doesn't take into account reality, is called fantasy. Turning "should be" into rights when there are clear counter-rights is an exercise in futility. He is welcome to use his time that way. He has that right.

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    59. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Explain how someone calling you robs you of your "freedom to control your phone." Does this freedom include the ability to not answer, or pick up and immediately hang up, or leaving the phone off the hook at hours when you can't be bothered with answering some simple questions? If so, how is parent using force to deprive you of this freedom?
      One of the most important ways to control my phone is to restrict calls so it doesn't ring. While you might be happy with leaving your phone off the hook while you are sleeping, I believe that leaving it on for emergency calls is important. That is why I'm glad telemarketers aren't allowed to call me at 2 AM. Further, the No Call laws are a blessing that have stopped most telemarketing calls for me. You are apparently untroubled by receiving telemarketing calls. I wonder at what point you'd find them annoying? 20 a day? 30? 100? And more importantly, why does it bother you that I don't want to receive political telemarketing calls? The previous poster asserts the right to call my number that is on the No Call list, forcing me to react too many times a day during elections. You may be happy to ignore the ringing, hang up immediately, leave your phone off the hook or listen to their message. That isn't why I have a phone -- so I'd like a better option.

      And if you have political convictions you are required to receive annoying phone calls?
      No, it's optional. That's the beauty of freedom.
      Well, I'd hope so, but this was in response to "If you have no political convictions then I suggest you courteously tell them as much and ask to not be called anymore." The assumption is that one can not have political convictions if one does not want to receive political phone calls. Surely you can understand that someone can have political convictions not supplied by a series of short propaganda messages?

    60. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I notice thdexter doesn't supply his phone number
      That is hillarious. An ANONYMOUS COWARD -the mass of all who either don't bother to log in, or want to hide their identity- calling a logged individual out on not being forthcoming with his personal data that most (or all) folks don't share on slashdot.
      I don't see the humor. Just because someone has a nick here doesn't tell you much -- thdexter could be anyone. Furthermore, I wouldn't expect thdexter to provide his phone number, nor would I really care if he did.
      The point is that thdexter expects to be able to call a list of people who don't know him and some who don't want to hear from him. By providing thdexter's phone number here, he could expect random calls with political content he probably doesn't want to hear. This is not so unlike what I experience during an election. Of course thdexter doesn't want this, so he doesn't provide his number. I wish I were able to not receive political calls as easily.

      thdexter and others claim you can just ignore phone calls or hang up. If that method works so well, why not give your phone number here? The method doesn't work well, thdexter knows it, and so thdexter won't post his phone number here.

      Comedy gold!
      I'll be here all week. Try the veal, it's great!

    61. Re:a word from an insider by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      Yes I do have the right to hang up the phone and effectively shut him up
      I'm sorry. I obviously was not clear enough when I said you don't have the right to shut him up. I meant deprive of freedom of speech. If you can do this simply by hanging up on someone, that's a neat trick. Personally when I close my eyes and plug my ears, people (and their rights) don't disappear. I see hanging up on someone not so much as silencing them as much as walking away from the conversation.

      Demanding that we all mind our P's and Q's when he calls is rather, well, ridiculous!
      I agree that would be ridiculous. And I don't think thdexter is a ridiculous individual. Doing a search on this text, I found no instance of the word "demand." Therefore it seems to me thdexter has merely been requesting people not be verbally abusive to him and speak to him as civilly as they would want to be spoken to. Is that so much to ask? Apparently yes, for some.

      Turning "should be" into rights when there are clear counter-rights is an exercise in futility
      Wow, I wish I had put it that eloquently when I was responding to this guy about his supposed right to not be bothered. Thank you.

    62. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And more importantly, why does it bother you that I don't want to receive political telemarketing calls?
      Did you say I? Who is I? What are You? I'll tell You what You are- You are an Anonymous Coward. You are nobody. You are nothing. You are sans identity. You are him and her and me. How do you like that?

      Anyways, it's important that you receive politcal telemarketing calls after you opt to give your phone number during you voter registration WHICH IS HOW THDEXTER GOT HIS NUMBERS so you know to be more careful with how and when you chose to give out your phone number in the future. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

    63. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      I meant deprive of freedom of speech.

      Frankly, I don't care how long he keeps talking into the phone after I've hung up. That direction of debate feels semantic and off the point.

      I found no instance of the word "demand."

      You're right. I overused that word. It was in a direct reponse to this quote found in the same post, however: "Have you no decency, sir?"

      Let's write a little script here:

      thdexter dials the phone, knowing he may be interrupting someone and knowing they may percive his interruption as extremely rude, regardless of how polite he is. He also knows that some poeple may or may not have Caller ID, answering machines, or even the desire to pick up the phone. thdexter does not know WHAT motivated the person to pick up the phone. The best he can hope for is that they picked up because they wanted to talk to him (or the organization he represents). The worst that can happen is that he is perceived in the lowest possible light and is hung up on rudely. There are lovely shades of grey in between. He knows he is rolling the dice.

      "Alfred" answers the phone: "Hello?" He knows it is not a friend or family member because he checked the Caller ID, but he answers anyway in case it's "important." Note, important to Alfred, not thdexter. Since the number was not recognized, Alfred's slimeball-ometer is wavering in the grey. At this moment thdexter still knows nothing about Alfred, but thdexter DOES know that some people will think he's a slimeball for merely calling.

      thdexter says, "Is this Alfred?" This tells Alfred that thdexter did not recognize Alfred's voice, which is a strike against. The slimeball-ometer moves towards the red somewhat. thdexter is acutely aware of this possibility.

      Alfred says, "Yes." Whatever thdexter says next will be critical for the slimeball-ometer. thdexter knows this.

      thdexter says, "My name is Marcus and I'm calling..." at this point Alfred knows it is not a social call, or a call that directly benefits him. The meter is getting more red. "... to poll you on behalf of the Democrat..." At this point Alfred knows the caller cares not a whit for him and is looking to extract benefit from him (poll stats, a vote, a vacuum cleaner -- doesn't matter to Alfred how the caller is trying to benefit off him, it's the principle of the thing). He despises calls like this.

      Alfred interrupts with, "I'm voting for Mickey Mouse, you dipweed!" and slams the phone down. thdexter always knew this was a possibility and is merely experiencing it actualized.

      thdexter then goes into an online forum and publicly opines: "Have you no decency, sir?" W. T. F. ?.

      At every step in the process thdexter knew of his possible fate. Rather than question his own actions which caused the interruption in the first place, he questions the general rudeness level of interrupted people. People at home. People with an expectation of the use of their own communication devices.

      If thdexter can live with his choice, then he has no place griping about rude people. If he can't, then he cleary knows what he has to change: himself, not his victims.

      There are shades of politeness and decency. I will teach my child to be polite whenever prudent. I will even teach my child to extend politeness when like is not offered in return (or from the outset). I will NOT teach my child that other choices around impoliteness, especially as reactions to his own activities that he KNOWS might appear rude, are "indecent."

      Wow, I wish I had put it that eloquently...

      Actually, it is one of my more poorly constructed sentences. I'm glad you got the meaning. But quickly: free speech = right. Phone hanging up (with dash of rudeness) EVEN THOUGH you got my number from a public source or even one I wrote down somewhere = same right. Expecting decency (the "should be") = not a right.

      "Free speech" by-the-by is a protection from the government. If I, a citizen, try to drown you out (or hang up on you) there is no protection (get a permit for that). An example: If I choose not to sell YOUR newspaper in my store = no rights violated. If the government says you can't print a newspaper = rights violated.

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    64. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Did you say I? Who is I? What are You?
      Apparently you are me and I am you since we are both AC. The issue here shouldn't be that slashdot allows anonymous posting. The issue is that, rightly so, people don't want annoying phone calls. I don't want to get political calls, just as thdexter doesn't want to get calls from people on slashdot. Both are political calls, both are unwanted.

      Anyways, it's important that you receive politcal telemarketing calls after you opt to give your phone number during you voter registration WHICH IS HOW THDEXTER GOT HIS NUMBERS so you know to be more careful with how and when you chose to give out your phone number in the future.
      You should be aware that voting is handled differently from state to state. I didn't provide a phone number when I registered. I just verified that the government here does NOT release phone numbers for those who did provide them. When the political groups get a list of registered voters here, they just get a list of names and addresses. The political groups then have to translate that into phone numbers.

      I'd like to be able to either extend the No Call list to include political calls, or to create a new Political No Call list. Voters would be on the list voluntarily. As best I can determine, you think it is OK to avoid getting political calls by hiding your phone number. Why is it OK to hide your phone number but it isn't OK to say "no thanks"?

      Is that simple enough for you to understand?
      Why are you being hostile?

    65. Re:a word from an insider by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1
      I'm a political science major and I could get into some hardcore theoretical stuff but it's late.
      Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh...

      Sorry, just kidding. I'll catch up with you when school's back in session. I think we're in the same quantum phsyics section.

    66. Re:a word from an insider by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but my right to be left alone trumps your right to free speech
      Why should we believe that statement? It's clear you're pissed, but you didn't exactly make a rational argument.
    67. Re:a word from an insider by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

      Because the right to be left alone by other people is the highest-ranking of all natural rights, as defined by me.

      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    68. Re:a word from an insider by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      thdexter then goes into an online forum and publicly opines: "Have you no decency, sir?" W. T. F. ?.
      I can see your point in ilustrating why thdexter should not expect his victims to show some general courtesy.
      However, I see the script rewinding a few days back when Alfred registered to vote.

      Alfred goes to his local voter registration center and encounters Polly. She greets him with a smile as he says "I'd like to register to vote."

      Polly hands him the voter registration form.

      Alfred fills out all required fields, as well as some optional fields, like home phone number, and hands the completed form to Polly.

      Polly says "Thanks," and walks away to process his form.

      Alfred goes home.

      Now, whether Alfred filled out the field on form labelled "Home phone number" out of hope that the pretty young lady would write it down in her address book and call him later that night, or because he thought it might be used in case the federal voting board needed to call him during a voting emergency, or (most likely) without thinking about it, his reason for putting his phone number down could probably be summed up by saying "He didn't know what he was doing." or "He gave out his information without knowing the consequence."

      Alfred may have a pattern of doing foolish things like this; he may not. But he definitely has done something here today that will yield negative results for him in the future. This will be a learning experience for him. He may or may not learn from it. Let's hope he does, and next time, before opining about what a jerk a phone pollster is (for using a phone number Alfred indirectly gave him), considers handling his contact information more responsibly. Maybe next time Alfred will not stupidly give out his number when he doesn't have to, or use a fake number, if not being bothered by pollsters is that important to him.

    69. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue here shouldn't be that slashdot allows anonymous posting.
      I'm not saying it's bad that slashdot always cowards like you and me to exist. I'm just saying assertions and questions from cowards like you and me are to be considered less seriously, given your/my record of things said. Identity comes with responsibilty, and power. Anonymity has only power- no responsibility- I don't respect that. I respect those who have the cajones to be some one, not everyone/anyone. I don't give this respect to those who don't give it to me.

      I don't want to get political calls, just as thdexter doesn't want to get calls from people on slashdot. Both are political calls, both are unwanted.
      Main difference being that thdexter was NOT stupid enough to give his number out. When people do stupid things, they should neither be rewarded NOR left alone for their mistakes. They should be punished. Life is tough. Life is tougher when you're stupid. And this is as it should be.

      I'd like to be able to either extend the No Call list to include political calls, or to create a new Political No Call list.
      Here's an idea- maybe you should contact your representative, or run for office, instead of whining about it anonymously on /.

      I didn't provide a phone number when I registered.
      Whatchu talkin about? GNAA members aren't allowed to vote.

      Why are you being hostile?
      Such is the nature of AC. (And the above respect thing.)
      I've stated my reason for being AC- What's yours?

    70. Re:a word from an insider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Alfred lives in my town, it doesn't matter if he provides his phone number to register or not. (previous comment) His phone number is not provided by the government to the political telemarketers. He is required to provide his name and address if he wants to vote, and that information is provided to the telemarketers. Turning that information into a phone number isn't too hard. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if some automated systems do war-dialing to hit every phone in an exchange.

      I don't know if there are any states where voters' phone numbers are directly turned over the telemarketers. If there are, I wouldn't blame the victim. Permission given to one group to call me does not transfer to another group.

      Why should political telemarketers be treated differently than other telemarketers? I shouldn't have to tell telemarketers "NO" over and over -- once in the form of a No Call list should be enough of a hint.

      This country has a serious problem with voter apathy. We don't need annoying phone calls to discourage participation in democracy.

    71. Re:a word from an insider by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1
      Because the right to be left alone by other people is the highest-ranking of all natural rights, as defined by me
      Thanks for the clarification. Now I'm just all motivated and stuff to die defending that right. Or I'll go back to browsing the web. Whatever...
    72. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      Where to begin?! ...before opining about what a jerk a phone pollster is (for using a phone number Alfred indirectly gave him), considers handling his contact information more responsibly.

      Methinks thou doth project too much.

      And, simply, so what? Alfred has the opportunity to learn a lesson or two. thdexter has the opportunity to learn a few dozen or hundreds. Levels of stupidity may be relative, they may not be. But that could be name calling and since you have not done that, I won't either.

      So let us sum up:

      * thdexter knows what he is doing might annoy people enough to swear at him and hang up

      * those people may or may not know the consequences of their voter registration actions

      * both parties are within their rights for their taken actions

      * thdexter calls into question the "decency" of the response he received, but does not question the questionable decency of his own actions OR feels they are perfectly decent, but can't live with the consequences. Regardless, he continues his activities unabated. This is good for him, how?

      * thdexter is a proponent of being active in government, but either does not, or chooses not to, see the benefit of rights being applied by those he calls. One wonders if he values decency over "free speech." If our system works well enough for him, he should defend his victims right to click him off.

      * thdexter acquires phone numbers indirectly, and thus without any knowledge whatsoever of the intention of the person writing the number down, yet assumes they did so out of desire to speak with him (or those whom he represents). When this is not the case he blames the victim's lack of decency instead of his own flawed presumption. How does he know it was flawed? He got a -click-bzzzzzzzzzz.

      * thdexter makes a further presumption that the reason a person bothered to answer the phone was because they wanted to talk to him (or someone like him). Again, the "FU!-click-bzzzzz" told him he was wrong.

      * thdexter is aware of the association with telemarketing, and the negativity involved there. He acknowledges that millions of people were so annoyed at that type of intrusion that a law was passed to help them out. He offers no reason why a person who is annoyed by telemarketing should not also be annoyed by him. I'm sure he would, if asked, but he'll be painting levels of gray that Alfred has shown no interest in already.

      * thdexter admits that he has nothing to offer the called person other then trading some highly controlled time for being a statistic. The called person will have no real input other than the numbers 1 through 5. He doesn't want to hear their "involved with the process" voice. He doesn't care what their real opinions are. He just wants to fill in his form. And his caller either knows or believes that BEFORE the first question is even asked.

      So "Alfred" possibly makes a common mistake, then exercises his irrefutable right to a politico who believes in the same.

      thdexter knows the negative consequences of his actions intimately, yet chooses to suffer them repeatedly for a greater good. It galls him, as well as his numerous victims.

      There is one person in this equation who has the ability to change the dynamic, has the motivation, and has the biggest societal impact by so doing. And he *knows* it. You figure it out.

      Don't get me wrong. I applaud thdexter's call for decency. It is a worthy cause. It is not, however, a realistic expectation and certainly not attainable with his current methods or mindset. His own data supports that. It's kind of like wishing you could put a ladder up to the moon and take an afternoon stroll in 1/6 G. It paints a pretty mental picture, but...

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    73. Re:a word from an insider by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      (previous comment)
      I'm confused are you saying this is your previous comment, or this one is?
      Sorry, all you ACs look the same to me.

      Also, it wouldn't surprise me if some automated systems do war-dialing to hit every phone in an exchange.
      Nice conjecture.

      Look, if you live in a place where people get political polling calls even though they never supplying their number to the caller (directly or indirectly) that sucks and you should do something about it. Find out who is your state and/or federal congressman, find out where they live, and fling poo at their house. Or petition them to change things, if you wanna be more effective than vengeful about it.

      In the meantime, this thread is about thdexter getting pooped on for calling people who indirectly gave him their number - giving their number in a context related to his call.

      Permission given to one group to call me does not transfer to another group.
      I agree if you replace "another" with "unrelated". If I'm signing up Nicklodeon Magazine, I don't wanna receive ads for Playboy, and vice versa. Receiving ads for Hustler after I subscribe to Playboy, I wouldn't call that unreasonable or surprising or wrong.

      In the case of thdexter, people are registering to vote. That means they care enough to have some political opinion that they want to express via voting. These people are also willfully opting to supply their phone number. Personally, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to then assume these people know what they're doing when they put pen to paper and write down the number. And if they don't know what they're doing, I say bully!, all the more reason to pester the idiots so as to maybe teach them to find out what their info will be used for before putting it down.

      We don't need annoying phone calls to discourage participation in democracy.
      Personally, annoying phone calls don't inspire apathy in me. They inspire annoyance. When I get annoyed about things, I do something about it. I get out there in this republic of ours and get politically active. Maybe when things annoy you, you just throw up your hands and say "Oh well, nothing I can do about it. Might as well go on being annoyed." And if so, that's cool. You can go ahead and be you, anonymous you that you are. I got no problem with that.

    74. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      Lots of heated argument against me. You're very levelheaded, which I appreciate, and I apologize if I'm here ineloquent or haven't wholly addressed the matters here presented...

      Was it something I said? ;-)

      You're picking your battles. Trespass was an easy one. Come on over to my posts and dig in for some stronger debate. Not heated. Not against you. Just pointed. Or show me how I'm being unreasonable. That'll make your brain hurt...

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

    75. Re:a word from an insider by Braino420 · · Score: 1

      You...are...kidding... You call people up and bother them and you say they're the assholes?

      You have got to realize you are doing more harm than good. If people are interested in voting and the like, they will find out for themselves which party is aligned with their beliefs.

      Make yourself available, but don't push yourself onto people who aren't interested (who are btw the extreme majority of the people you bother).

      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    76. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      That's not hypocrisy. The AC is calling me out for what he views as a privacy-violating imposition on others while not giving my phone number out freely. He's only asking me to defend my actions. He's saying that I should be public with my info if I call people, but he isn't calling people, and so he doesn't have to supply anything.

      Posting a comment like yours occured to me, but on that argument, he's on sure footing insofar as hypocrisy goes. Maybe I didn't explain it very well, though. Anyway, I'm only calling registered voters from Idaho's 1st district (in fact, within 30 miles of my residence), and I'm not trying to defend any other calls here right now, so. That's my counterargument--he isn't in my district.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    77. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      It was, in fact, a couple somethings you said, in resposne to your question. I only saw this part of the thread so I'll try to talk about some of the issues here presented, and other points.

      --

      Forgive me if I haven't made this clear: I understand why people might be inclined to hang up on me. Simultaneously I think it's discourteous. Simultaneously I don't cry myself to sleep over it. I have justified to myself what I am doing. People are statistics are people; people deserve to be treated respectfully; I am a person, I am calling people. Your opinion, it seems, is that part of the deal of treating people with respect includes not to be called by persons unknown, to at least some degree. I disagree with you on that, and I don't think that anything I say will change your mind.

      My position, I'll admit, is somewhat nuanced. Maybe yours is similarly nuanced, because from this post here a cohesive argument from your part escapes me: I'm discourteous for not responding to you. I'm discourteous if I keep talking to people. I'm discourteous if I reply to people who have replied to me.

      So you replied to me today about my silence in front of some unanswered replies. So here I am now talking to you again. I stopped replying because I didn't think any more benefit would come about from further discussion.

      Let me address this text here: Fact: You have NO RIGHT to make me listen to you. How I choose not to listen is my business. Suck it up. [...] People don't like to be called randomly. Amazing, really, that you tout the DNC legislation as your modus operandi when most people would, if the law allowed, opt out of getting calls from people like you.

      I agree with your statement about my rights and people listening to me. How you choose not to listen is your business, I agree. Suck it up, you say? Okay. I will, and do, and can. People don't like to be called randomly--fine. Most people would, if the law allowed, opt out of getting calls from "people like me"--fine. Some wouldn't. Some revel in it. I don't have a divination rod that can tell me who's who, and I'm not prepared to call noone to be on the safe side. The law is that there is, in fact, a political exemption. Of course, politicians wrote the laws, signed the law, and interpreted the law. That's our system. Our system, and its servants, think that government and politics is something holy, and elevated, and virtuous, and good. Maybe you disagree, or disagree in the respect of telephones. That's fine. But it's my opinion, too.

      understand the medium, suck it up, and move on. Demanding that we all mind our P's and Q's when he calls is rather, well, ridiculous!

      You're right. It is ridiculous, and unenforceable. I cannot reasonably demand or expect it. I cannot reasonably demand or expect people to hold doors open for me, or to pick up my papers if I should drop them, or to offer me a tissue when I sneeze, or to help me if I have a flat tire. But some people do, and I appreciate that. I try to be a humble and courteous and gracious guy. That goes so far as even when I'm on the telephone. I don't follow the script I'm given right now because there's a lot of bullshit they ask me to say and it takes up people's time unreasonably and I wouldn't like to hear it myself, so I'm curt and gracious and humble. I think, ideally, everybody would be courteous to everyone else. Your definition of courtesy lies on this side of not calling people you don't know for political polling, and mine has a line where you don't hang up on people unless they're unreasonably incessant, or a message, or other like circumstances.

      I was egregious in my employ of that quote, "have you no decency, sir." If you did not recognize it, it's what Joseph Welch said to Sen. Joseph McCarthy after his Communist ordeal finally came to an end. I beg pardon for having said it, but, like many, it's sometimes hard for me to understand points of view contrary to my own on issues very fundamental to me, as civics is. I think voting is a right and a duty

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    78. Re:a word from an insider by thdexter · · Score: 1

      Now you're the one who isn't responding, friend.

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    79. Re:a word from an insider by neonfrog · · Score: 1

      I will try to. Life got busy. I'd like to respond qualitatively, but that takes time. Time is a luxury...

      --

      I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

  41. One approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  42. Your problem is Cingular by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

    Your problem is your carrier. I use Verizon Wireless, and the only time I have connection/audio quality problems is when I'm inside a building that is massively thick and/or armored/shielded in some way (office building, home depot, grocery store, etc). I have many coworkers and friends who use Cingular or Sprint who complain of bad coverage and drop-outs, but I don't seem to have those probles with Verizon.

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
  43. Depressed by your job? Quit or ask for a raise. by TheLink · · Score: 1

    "if better jobs were out there and available to us, we'd be working them instead."

    Sure many of the people you call might be assholes etc.

    BUT from what I see here, it does seem like tons of people you call don't like you calling them. Why don't you get a job where most people actually like what you are doing to/for them? Because this pays more? So who's the bigger asshole?

    If you don't mind annoying people just because it pays more, why don't you go send viagra/stock market spam or something? It's the same thing.

    Do you really believe there is some greater purpose to your job - that overall it brings a greater benefit to the world?

    If it doesn't, then give me a good reason why people shouldn't make your job harder even if the job is legal (in the hope that your employers have to start offering lots more money for the job, and having to hire more people, and the job goes away eventually).

    Maybe I'm wrong and most people actually don't mind being called. Anyone have stats? Perhaps some independent party should be called to do a phone survey with just 1 question: "do you dislike being called?" if the majority called answer yes, then all such surveys should be banned.

    --
  44. About what you'd expect by pestie · · Score: 1

    He whined about how much he hates voice mail - leaving it, getting it, the blinkey light that compels him to pick up his voice mail, etc. And all the while he tries desperately to be funny and creative. "Ooh, ooh, look at me! I'm clever! I'm like, an artistic type! Yeah, I know I'm podcasting, and that's, like, so 2005, but check it out - I have this neo-luddite streak in me: I hate voice mail! Tee-hee! I told you I was clever!"

    Yeah, I know I'm no better. Therein lies the irony. Oh, woe be unto the irony, and all who read it!

  45. apolitical beligerent by popsicle67 · · Score: 1

    The system I have devised gets me off the phone quick and cuts down the harassment greatly.
    As the telemarketer starts the spiel stop them to say "hold on I just need you to state your full name for my records and This conversation is being recorded for later use". If they squawk(and they will squawk) offer them the choice of hanging up or going on record. It does not take long to get off a call list with this ploy. It also works great for collection agents

  46. In Praise of PACS by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > For the record, any political contributions we make go to PACs. We figure that the money will be better distributed
    > to the candidates that actually support our positions, than if we gave to the national parties.

    God damn! It just makes my day to see someone else with a political clue here at slashdot! I don't care if your preferred PACs are moveon.org, CPAC or the NRA, just the fact you have figured that out puts you miles ahead of 90% of the general population and apparently about 99% of slashdot useful idiots.

    PACs are the big equalizer between US and the monied interests. Sure Exxon can give a candidate a pile of cash, so can the alternative energy companies, the other oil companies, the car companies. But so can Greenpeace. I don't particularly like Greenpeace, but recognize they give political voice to a large number of people who would be raging in the wilderness otherwise. Personally I'd rather they be in the game fighting for what they believe instead of assembling pipebombs. Same for the NRA, and remember WE already HAVE GUNS but content ourselves with donating money and plinking! Because that is what it comes down too, our form of government works because most people realize they have a shot at bringing about change through peaceful means instead of going all Hezbullah on us, which is why we only have a few really fringe nutjobs (ELF a few pro-life types and one Tim Mcveigh are about the extent of the homegrown type in the last few decades) blowing crap up. Outlaw PACs and lobbying and I'd really hate to see how bloody the current war of words between NARAL and the Pro-Life camp would get.

    Which is why I'm really not looking forward to the next presidential election cycle. Hopefully something will shake up the landscape before then. Because while I'm a lifelong Republican I follow Heinlein's law. I will vote for a dunderhead of my party vs a genius of the party opposing, but I won't vote for someone outright harmful to our form of Government or who exhibits a gross moral defect. Most Democrats are terrified of Hillary Clinton and are praying for someone else to emerge, and I agree. But our side seems hellbent on nominating John McCain, primary sponsor of McCain Feingold and thus failing the 'harmful to our form of Government' test. If the Repubs hold Congress in the fall and appear likely to repeat in '08 I might have to vote for Hillary on the "she won't get anything from a Republican Congress while McCain would." argument.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  47. If you don't get it, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you don't get it, so I'll feed it to you with a baby spoon.

    Telemarketing in general is obnoxious not so much for the being interrupted in what one is doing, going to the phone, picking it up and listening to somebody who stands to benefit from stealing one's attention. Neither is it the presumptousness of using my phone to interrupt me in what I'm doing without knowing me or at least having some business that I need to attend to.

    Telemarketing is obnoxious because of the disregard the instigators exhibit for a quite important part of human relations - namely manners. By disregarding my time, the interrupting of what I'm doing and any reasons I may have for not wanting to do business with them, the telemarketing enterprise extends their hand into my living room and shows me the finger.

    Now when it comes to political telesales: If volunteers are so eager to get the word out, they can improve the circulation of their fat (by > 60% probability) asses by coming in person. By putting some effort into visiting _me_, I know the inconvenience isn't one-sided - heck if I like what they have to say, I might invite them in for coffee. There is no point in dealing with people that expect all and give nothing in return.

    Besides, if that message is so important, write it down, write it well and mail it to the local newspaper. If things are at all worth doing, they're worth doing not only well, but also properly.

  48. Hang up QUICKLY. Talk back! by mi · · Score: 1

    Their computers are measuring the time, their pitch was listened to... Depress them by having that parameter go down on average.

    Also, although no one can hear you scream back at the recording, when aproached by the live campaigners for the same jerk, be sure to talk about nothing else, except how disappointed you are, that their representative chooses to violate your privacy with these automated phone calls.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  49. If you weren't invited, you're not welcome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just as true on my phone as it is at my front door.

  50. Dumbocraps. LOOOOOOOOL by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    I see what you did there.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  51. Oh, come on! by gettingbraver · · Score: 1

    A campaign needs to identify its supporters, and then needs to follow up with them at least a couple times before and on election day for the message to sink in. I tell a campaign worker that I am or am not interested--that identifies me. If I wanted to volunteer or give a donation, I'd contact whoever and let them know. Instead, campaign workers think that voters are too stupid to remember and have to constantly be told a candidate's views. A recorded phone call just tells me that a candidate has more money to spend on getting elected than he/she knows what to do with, staff that feels they are above all, and most importantly is not interested in really listening the voters. When I go to vote, I've already decided who I am going to vote for. If I am forced to hear more of the same by campaign staff as I walk into the polling place, all that does is antagonize me into possibly voting for a different candidate, or not voting for anyone for that office. Hope that is clear.

  52. No, you really are throwing away your vote by sdpinpdx · · Score: 1

    We have to play this game the way the rules are written. It's all well and good to encourage the opposing party to vote for the right guy regardless of party, but unless yours has a large majority you're going to lose doing that. Propping up third party spoilers is a standard technique for undermining the opposition.

    Sure this sucks, but until we can get approval voting or some other rational system (not bloody likely, but it could happen) we have to play this game.

  53. Well, here's what I did: by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

    The conversation went almost exactly like this:

    [Her] I have an imporatant question for you: who do you plan to vote for in tomorrow's Republican primary?
    [Me] Y'know, that is a really good question. I honestly haven't decided who I'm going to vote for, but I've got it narrowed-down to either Bob Corker or David Davis.
    [Her] Uh... uh, ok. Well, thanks very much!

    I figure they added me to their "nut list", and it'll be quite a while before I hear from them again -- you see, David Davis and Bob Corker (both Republicans, and both seeking nominations here in Tennessee's Republican primary) weren't running against each other; they were each running for completely separate offices! I figure both candidates will have access to the results from the polling (probably being funded by the Tennessee GOP) and they'll (well, their campaign people) think "well, at least this guy got the names right... I guess we need to do a better job at position, platform, and recognition ." Which is exactly what we want from candidates, no?

    I did the same thing a few years ago after being pestered over the course of seven or eight days to sign up for some unwanted and unneeded long-distance service; I told the guy "I don't know why you keep calling me about long-distance service because I don't even HAVE a phone!" Never heard from that particular company again; guess I made their "nut list" too.

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  54. easy. by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    "Ohh.. I'd love to participate.. can you hold on a minute" set the phone down. Wait a few minutes, pick up "crap, sorry.. can you hold on just a minute longer. I'm real excited about your call" set the phone down. rinse, repeat.

    --
    meh
  55. Tied up by phorm · · Score: 1

    In the meantime, your line is also tied up for any more-important calls you might be receiving...

  56. DECLINE TO STATE! by Palal · · Score: 1

    I declined to state my party when registerring to vote. No calls. Period. Before I was old enough to be registered to vote I got a call from the NRA asking me for donations. After telling them a couple of times I don't want anything to do with them (I have no idea how they got my info) they stopped calling. Haven't had a political call since.

    --
    -Palal
  57. I See it as an Opportunity by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Since anyone who reads Slashdot who matters works in IT, we all have stress to relieve. What better way to do it than to be horrifically abusive when they call. It needn't be obscene (although that's more fun) and can still be quite effective. My first method is to let them roll through their spiel and then at the end when they ask the first question I ask if they can repeat everything they just said because I didn't get it. Repeat this as many times as neccessary. Who needs a "Do Not Call" list when you can get on their "Mental Issues" list which is far more effective?

    Another method if the caller is of the opposite sex (or the same sex if you think it will freak them out even worse) is to say in the wormiest or slimiest voice possible... "Are you single???" A lot of people get flustered by this. You could also ask what the person is wearing and try to be suggestive the whole time. Who knows you might even score!

    If you've got friends over you can always have them play out some really frightening scene in the background while you chat non-plussed. Have them pretend to be a couple having a fight that quickly escalates to violence. If the caller says, "Is everything OK" you just say, "Oh yeah, at least this time the bleeding is happening in the kitchen where it's easier to clean up".

    Just a few ideas off the top of my head... Be creative! Have fun! And most of all be careful out there.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  58. Even More Puzzled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the views expressed here are appalling, showing no understanding or sophistication about the political process. ... To vote for party A because someone from party B called is a ludicrous idea.

    Thanks for helping us with understanding politics; I slept through my civics class. So I'm OK if I want to vote for Net Neutrality, but if I vote for someone based on shared values about privacy issues it isn't acceptable. Is there is list of approved issues somewhere? I'd hate to break any laws when I vote.

    Having served as a phone-calling volunteer many times

    Oh so you are one of them. Click!

  59. My favorite tactic by munpfazy · · Score: 1

    My favorite tactic is to record all the messages from the group you most dislike.

    Then, you digitize the audio and cut it up into individual phrases and words. You can either reassemble them by hand, or use a sound-board (a midi keyboard with appropriate software works great) to play them in real time. Rearrange the message so that it either says something absolutely opposite their real platform, or (my favorite) try to create an extreme version of their actual platform. The more extreme, the better; if you can arrange to have them call for overt genocide, you're in business.

    Then, you phone the message in to your local college radio station, or make a friend there and give them the tapes. Or, if you really want to have fun, call in to a commercial talk radio station - ideally one aligned with the candidate - and try to get your message on air.

    Of course, it helps if you happen to get calls with messages from someone immediately recognizable, preferably someone who makes an idiot of himself every time he speaks. It's hard to beat Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Well, Bush would be even better - but I haven't gotten any calls from him. Guess his folks don't bother calling Greens.)

  60. Nice snark by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    First off, I complement you on your snark. You do it well. But down to business.

    You claim that his argument implies that cause and effect don't mean anything. This is not just a typical straw man argument, it's an obvious one.
    What he said:
    Don't kid yourself, that would be happening no matter what.
    I said:
    You claim that the exact same consequences would follow no matter what we did...in essence that cause and effect don't really mean anything.

    This is hardly a strawman. In a universe where the exact same things would happen no matter what we did, what exactly would "cause and effect" mean? I defy you to accept his premise and give a cogent definition of causality.

    He said "Everything is not simple." If I take your reading (that he is intending "All things are not-simple thus there are no things which are simple," it's even worse for him. For one thing, the situation he describes (the outcome is the same regardless of what we do) would be a direct counter example. You can't get much simpler than that.

    You make a great appeal to fear and appeal to emotion to support your causes because we all know how bad those evil republicans are! But this doesn't change his statement that something other than the actions of our politicians is causing the hate aimed at westerners and/or non-muslims. Your argument is weak and the fact that you constantly attempt to change the discussions on /. to republican vs. democrat arguments further reduces your credibility.

    Whoa there, buddy. Who said anything about evil Republicans or Republicans vs. Democrats? Certainly not me. I happen to be a life long registered Republican. My argument is against politicians of either party who run up huge deficits, stretch our military to near the breaking point, screw over the vets when they return, let their corporate owners feed at the public trough without restraint, ignore the law and the constitution when it suits them, and kill innocent people (of any nation) and turn the world against us in their blind lust for power.

    I can't for the life of me understand why everyone keeps assuming this is "Republicans vs. Democrats" when the "opposition" party's main contribution to this whole fiasco is a bunch of half hearted whining about how they aren't getting their share of the spoils.

    And why they hate us should be obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by some sort of partisan / nationalistic / racist dogmatism. What would you be doing today if, instead of going quietly into the night the Soviets had beaten us in the cold war, decided we needed "Regime Change," arrested the President, disbanded our military and police, and were this very minute building huge bases in our heartland, arming the Mexicans so they could come take what they wanted, letting their soldiers rape 14 year old American girls, kill them and their families and burn their bodies, and so on and so forth.

    Would you be welcoming our new overlords? Or would you be a "terrorist"?

    --MarkusQ

  61. Thanks for the comment by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the comment. I don't personally find it objectionable (or else I wouldn't use it), but I can sympathize with the reaction. My personal hot button is referring to people by derogatory nicknames (e.g. "Turdblossom", which started as Bush's (affectionate?) name for Karl Rove) instead of just giving their real name. So I can relate.

    I can't promise I'll drop it completely, but I'm sure I'll be less likely to use it knowing at least one person objects to it.

    --MarkusQ

  62. Tell them you're not eighteen by Kaytrio · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if you tell them you're not old enough to vote, you won't offend anyone and you can probably have some fun with them in the process!

  63. .........Piff by spx · · Score: 1

    http://whocalled.us/ You can use to report a good many if you are already DNC, and still you can report them as well. We have a voip line here, unless its family/friends/work related, I usally dont answer, most will hang up when voice mail kicks in, if I do randomly pick up (wonder who it is calling) a good example is.

    Hi Im calling to sell you a newspaper? What??! Im blind, send it in braile. *click*

    Most of the time I ask them questions regarding how they should handle this call, or tell them I want to speak with their supervisor. Since I have done marketing/funding calls in my youth, I still try and keep updated as to the laws, etc.....but when they constantly try to rebuttal my remarks - then I see if I can make them cry. Its also fun to tell them (since Im with child) they are upsetting my baby and do not call back.....I am evil....it is Monday.

  64. Worse for the politicians by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
    I interned in the DC office of a national Republican politician last semester. An anon group (we figured out who it probably was eventually) set up an autodialer to call the people in our district with a message about how bad we were. It ended with the plea to "Press 1 to tell him to get some backbone!" Pressing 1 would connect them with our office. We were bombarded with calls of people who did not understand the messages and would start yelling at us to stop calling them. It took some work to calm these people down and explain that were were definitely not responsible for the calls. As luck would have it we got to talk policy with people who would never intentionally call their congressman.


    Make sure you know what these calls are about before letting it influence your voting. When I worked phone banks for Bush/Cheney 2004 we kept running lists of the results of our calls. People who did not want to be called again were noted and erased from the list. We were looking for volunteers, not money and I didn't get paid for it. We only called people who were registered Republicans and had been active in the party in the past. It is a waste of time to call people again and again who are not interested.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  65. Fair enough... by StressGuy · · Score: 1

    From you beginning paragraph:

    "I'm a little puzzled about why people here are getting so worked up about this. Does a 15- or 20-second inconvenience fray your nerves so much that you need to devise anti-calling plots to post on Slashdot? If that's the case, I frankly recommend a deep breath, a pleasant stroll, and a massage. I'm friendly even when commercial telemarketers or Republicans call."

    No, but string 5 or 10 of these calls together around dinner time every night and I start to get a little annoyed.

    No, but when the same group continues to call numerous times after you have clearly communicated that you are not interested and they've assured you that they are "taking you off their list" for the fifth time...yea, it's gets aggrivating....even harassing.

    No, but when a political party calls you eight times in the space of an hour on election night to remind you to get to the polls before they close after you have repeatedly told them that you've already voted and please stop calling this number....that, can be downright infuriating.

    Minor annoyances, when added up over time, become major annoyances, if not out-and-out harassment.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline