One way to look at this is the distribution angle.
Perhaps the producer of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is miffed that the NSTA won't do her classroom distribution for her. She might have to work a little to get those DVDs to 50,000 schools herself.
If education is really what she cared about, she wouldn't put a financially strapped Science Teacher's organization in the position of losing funding. She wants the NSTA to choose sides which puts them in a very difficult position. What benefit does that yield education in general? Might get her film out NOW, but does not benefit NSTA in the long run. Have to question her motives on that one.
You think a science teacher would NOT use the film if it showed up in the classroom? The individual classroom isn't directly funded by Exxon-Mobil (I never get gas from them anymore! stopesso.org). Does the NSTA have stopping power to ban classroom material? Hardly.
Rather than gripe that they won't take care of the mailing list for her, she could note that the NSTA, like nearly all educational institutions, should not have to be in the situation of begging $$$ from corps in the first place. She could then save the NSTA some money (and make a big PR campaign of it) and not risk their future funding by getting the film to classrooms herself. If her motives are education and realistic, why would she do anything else?
Just remember... if you don't go and press a button/pull a lever/sign your name -> YOU CAN'T BITCH!!!!!!!!
I often choose not to vote so I hear this a lot. It is wrong every single time it is said.
Ours is a representative governemt. No matter who gets elected, they represent ME, whether or not I voted for them.
Additionally, I pay taxes just like nearly everyone. I pay and pay and pay for my right to bitch... whether or not I vote.
Simply, if you vote for one guy (and passionately campaign for her/him), and the other guy wins, do you lose your right to call your elected representative? Didn't think so.
The other interesting tidbit found here (sorry about the horrid flash link) is that Exxon has moved $12+ million (discoverable) towards anti-global warming organizations. That sounds like a lot -- until you realize they make a billion $ a day...
The Segway also uses gyros, otherwise it would be useless for... wait for it... stopping. You know, that thing you do when you're done going? Even if the entire stopping and standing "still" activity requires micro-motions of the wheels, well that just tells you it CAN stay balanced in one place so it, um, should.
You added a step for the motorcyle. If the stand is down, it is balancing for me when I sit on it not moving (we are talking about not moving, here, right? I am.). And that's on a $200 scrap bike from the side of the road. The Seg, at $5k, should be a teeny bit more featured, or at least as featured. The new "key" dongle thing should make the Seg aware of you without even going through a sequence. Falling because you forgot to push a button is just a silly design.
A motorcycle or bicyle is designed to require you to have a foot on the ground to balance at stop (with the stand exception being a bonus). A Segway is designed to have both feet off the ground when stopped. Understand the difference yet?
A motorcyle or bicycle is a mostly mechanical contraption using over 100 year old technology. A Segway was designed in this century as a modern transport device. There's really no excuse for getting it wrong. And it really isn't that difficult to get it right (it's just freakin' software!). What would YOU expect for your $5k-spot?
A device, whose sole trick is balance achieved electromechanically, should be smart enough to sense when a foot and a hand are on it and thus throw itself into balance mode. Sure, you'd need a key to actually go anywhere, but no on-board logic to help prevent you from falling on your face without following a prescribed power on sequence? Not even optionally? Bad design!
My car has NEVER caused me to hurtle dangerously out of the driver's seat because I failed to turn a key.
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...
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...
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 understand your point. And you seem to understand mine.
Here's a thought. I'm not a Photoshop expert by any means. Wouldn't it save a lot of energy (and bandwidth) if the photographer sent the digitally watermarked camera proof (the original DRM file) and the "edits to be applied file?" In other words, he opens the original in Photoshop, performs a series of edits and corrections, then saves the "macro" of what he did. Then the editor only has to receive the big DRM file and the tiny "macro." When s/he applies the macro, they can see the difference at any point along the edit path. They can also see difference between original and end-result more simply then trying to compare side by side. Unless you have a differential program that shows you the differences (Beyond Compare comes to mind), side-by-side can be very difficult and time-consuming.
It seems obvious to me so I must be missing somethng catastrophic.
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.
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 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!).
Slashdot Mirror
One way to look at this is the distribution angle.
Perhaps the producer of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is miffed that the NSTA won't do her classroom distribution for her. She might have to work a little to get those DVDs to 50,000 schools herself.
If education is really what she cared about, she wouldn't put a financially strapped Science Teacher's organization in the position of losing funding. She wants the NSTA to choose sides which puts them in a very difficult position. What benefit does that yield education in general? Might get her film out NOW, but does not benefit NSTA in the long run. Have to question her motives on that one.
You think a science teacher would NOT use the film if it showed up in the classroom? The individual classroom isn't directly funded by Exxon-Mobil (I never get gas from them anymore! stopesso.org). Does the NSTA have stopping power to ban classroom material? Hardly.
Rather than gripe that they won't take care of the mailing list for her, she could note that the NSTA, like nearly all educational institutions, should not have to be in the situation of begging $$$ from corps in the first place. She could then save the NSTA some money (and make a big PR campaign of it) and not risk their future funding by getting the film to classrooms herself. If her motives are education and realistic, why would she do anything else?
WiFi Speed Spray to the rescue!
... just another way to say "church?"
Just remember... if you don't go and press a button/pull a lever/sign your name -> YOU CAN'T BITCH!!!!!!!!
... whether or not I vote.
I often choose not to vote so I hear this a lot. It is wrong every single time it is said.
Ours is a representative governemt. No matter who gets elected, they represent ME, whether or not I voted for them.
Additionally, I pay taxes just like nearly everyone. I pay and pay and pay for my right to bitch
Simply, if you vote for one guy (and passionately campaign for her/him), and the other guy wins, do you lose your right to call your elected representative? Didn't think so.
A perfect response to How to Handle Political Telemarketing?!!!
A perfect response to !!!
Cool! Then it could darken like Zaphod's sunglasses so you wouldn't have to panic just before impact!
The organization at the core of all of this is The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Odd linky which connects them to here.
...
Ready for the brain-twister? They are pro nuclear energy.
Demonize away!
The other interesting tidbit found here (sorry about the horrid flash link) is that Exxon has moved $12+ million (discoverable) towards anti-global warming organizations. That sounds like a lot -- until you realize they make a billion $ a day
Don't exhale?
We have watched the Internet become something so big that a signal entity can't wield enough power to control it any longer.
Signal entity? Do you mean the FCC? Man, I sure hope you're right about that...
Well at least he didn't cheat!
Windows gaming has a mouse and keyboard input.
The Segway also uses gyros, otherwise it would be useless for ... wait for it ... stopping. You know, that thing you do when you're done going? Even if the entire stopping and standing "still" activity requires micro-motions of the wheels, well that just tells you it CAN stay balanced in one place so it, um, should.
You added a step for the motorcyle. If the stand is down, it is balancing for me when I sit on it not moving (we are talking about not moving, here, right? I am.). And that's on a $200 scrap bike from the side of the road. The Seg, at $5k, should be a teeny bit more featured, or at least as featured. The new "key" dongle thing should make the Seg aware of you without even going through a sequence. Falling because you forgot to push a button is just a silly design.
A motorcycle or bicyle is designed to require you to have a foot on the ground to balance at stop (with the stand exception being a bonus). A Segway is designed to have both feet off the ground when stopped. Understand the difference yet?
A motorcyle or bicycle is a mostly mechanical contraption using over 100 year old technology. A Segway was designed in this century as a modern transport device. There's really no excuse for getting it wrong. And it really isn't that difficult to get it right (it's just freakin' software!). What would YOU expect for your $5k-spot?
A device, whose sole trick is balance achieved electromechanically, should be smart enough to sense when a foot and a hand are on it and thus throw itself into balance mode. Sure, you'd need a key to actually go anywhere, but no on-board logic to help prevent you from falling on your face without following a prescribed power on sequence? Not even optionally? Bad design!
My car has NEVER caused me to hurtle dangerously out of the driver's seat because I failed to turn a key.
I will try to. Life got busy. I'd like to respond qualitatively, but that takes time. Time is a luxury...
... "Hot Lunch" mod?
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...
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...
...CRT('s)...HVAC power circuitry...
Your monitor has its own AIR CONDITIONER? Awesome....
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 understand your point. And you seem to understand mine.
Here's a thought. I'm not a Photoshop expert by any means. Wouldn't it save a lot of energy (and bandwidth) if the photographer sent the digitally watermarked camera proof (the original DRM file) and the "edits to be applied file?" In other words, he opens the original in Photoshop, performs a series of edits and corrections, then saves the "macro" of what he did. Then the editor only has to receive the big DRM file and the tiny "macro." When s/he applies the macro, they can see the difference at any point along the edit path. They can also see difference between original and end-result more simply then trying to compare side by side. Unless you have a differential program that shows you the differences (Beyond Compare comes to mind), side-by-side can be very difficult and time-consuming.
It seems obvious to me so I must be missing somethng catastrophic.
Will you also require a wide-shot exposed at the same instant as the framed close-up? From multiple angles? Over time?
If not, you have left the ultimate manipulations still available: choosing the moment and framing it.
Ultimately, the only real photographic proof will come from independent corroboration. Already we can make "real looking" photos from nothing.
It seems to me that by replying to thdexter, the AC was making known that he did want to communicate to him...
;-) 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.
/. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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!).