Or maybe he's just a professional troll, like Ann Coulter or Marilyn Manson, and we should all just ignore him instead of giving him the attention he thinks he deserves?
Really wish you guys would stop doing that. Whenever anybody mentions anything related to ads in any way (even when they're talking about blocking the ads) some wisenheimer has to go WHAT ADS I USE FIREFOX AM I MISSIN OUT ON SOMTHIN LOL ???
You are not clever because you use Firefox, OK. Nobody is impressed. Especially not on Slashdot, where EVERYBODY has known how to block ads for ages now.
I've got a Myspace page, because it's the most convenient way to keep in touch with some of my old classmates. I've often thought about how few practical applications these kinds of 'social networking' sites provide, aside from general time-wasting. I've also scoffed at the number of young kids who have thousands of friends, as if it's the high school popularity contest in digital form.
Yeah, well, you're gonna expect that anywhere i guess. LiveJournal, Xanga, MySpace, BlogSpot, where-ever. I personally think MySpace does the best job of 'bringing it all together', though (blogs, message boards, friends, profiles, it's all so interconnected).
That said, MySpace is probably one of the worst-written sites of all time. Tom seems like a swell guy (i've talked to him a few times), but he and/or his team couldn't design a site if their lives depended on it. I mean that in terms of both the HTML and the 'server-side' stuff. They're constantly doing maintenance (which hardly ever seems to fix anything); they do completely random text-filtering (like you can't say '% of', the system will strip it out); the time zones are always wrong; you have to post blogs twice sometimes in order to get the auto-formatting to work; their HTML/CSS is terrible (most of their ids and classes have illegal names); the blog's design editor is retarded because the default style sheet is set to override your custom style sheet (so i'm not sure what the point is of even having the option); and so on.
Tom says he's working on a 'CSS-friendly' version of MySpace, and it seems like that's the case because suddenly there's a bunch of unused stuff if you look at the style sheet, but i have doubts that it's actually going to be much better.... Or if it's even going to be 'CSS-friendly'.
The phrase supposedly started in America a few decades ago, but it's spread to the rest of the world by now. The etymology isn't entirely clear (some people think it could've been intended to be sarcastic, or that it was misread in print), but it's probably the simplest one -- it's the same reason people say 'case and point' and 'for all intensive purposes' and 'supposively'. People say it so often that eventually some of them become ignorant of the actual meaning and just repeat it however.
I don't think most people actually intend to say it incorrectly but, in my experience, they also refuse to change when they are told that it's wrong. I guess they just... couldn't... care less....
What makes you so sure it had anything to do with either of them? She lives in Brooklyn, maybe she's exposed to gangs and fights in real life all the time. Or maybe her mom was completely irresponsible and just never taught her right from wrong.
Anyway, if you were going to make a case that it was one or the other, i should think that it's more likely to have been 'caused' by video games than by HBO. When somebody gets stabbed in the chest on HBO, they bleed and they're in pain and they die. The consequences are pretty clear, even to a child. That's not always the case in video games.
I can't tell if this was just a typing error or not, and i know it wasn't really important to your point, but.
I have 29 ounces or less of Coke each day, and that's about all the caffeine I have (occasionally I'll have a chocolate candy bar or something, but that's rare I believe that's roughly the same amount of caffeine as a single cup of coffee, maybe slightly more.
Chocolate doesn't really have that much caffeine in it. It obviously depends on the type of chocolate and the amount, but i think your standard candy bar has less caffeine than a can of soda. And those '29 ounces' (that's a pretty random number, but OK) of Coke have less caffeine combined than a normal cup of coffee.
I didn't understand that part either. I'm not a psychologist or anything, but i have an anxiety disorder (or two or three), and i have certainly been aware of it for as long as i've had it. Maybe not the scientific name of the disorder or the specific symptoms, but it certainly was known to me that what i was experiencing wasn't rational (or 'normal').
On top of that, everything i've read or been told, from Wikipedia to my therapist to the text books, has said that people with anxiety disorders are usually aware of their behaviour. Like if you have OCD, you usually know you're being a little unreasonable. You might not have the ambition to do something about it, but you know it's there.
Maybe it's different for more serious anxiety disorders, i don't know.
Walmart's most prized possesion is their billion-billion-billion transaction customer sales database. They use it to find things like, among other things, men tend to buy beer and diapers at the time.
I don't know a single thing about Wal-Mart's 'billion-billion-billion transaction customer sales database', so i'm curious about this.
How exactly does Wal-Mart know stuff like that? I don't know about men buying diapers and beer, but i, for one, have been to Wal-Mart many times in many different cities, and i don't recall any way that they could possibly have ever known my gender, unless their employees were watching me and marking it down secretly.
Re:but what about newer webcomics?
on
Webcomics Dissected
·
· Score: 1, Troll
I think that most Web comics are incredibly unamusing. VG Cats is one especially. I don't know where most Web-comic artists get their sense of humour, but it's incredibly lame. When i read stuff like VG Cats and Sexy Losers and 8-Bit Theatre i just imagine that the intended audience is like some furry who hangs out on rôle-playing boards and punctuates all of his sentences with ^___^;;;;
The only Web comics i can think of that i like are Penny Arcade (which is maybe a little over-rated, and the whole 'tube ninja' thing is retarded, but for the most part it's funny) and Pokey the Penguin (which is pretty much humanity's greatest artistic achievement). And Perry Bible Fellowship is good most of the time, too, but i don't think that's strictly a Web comic, is it? Same thing with Dilbert. (They're both rooted in the news papers, i thought. I dunno.)
MegaTokyo was OK when it first started. Not great, but at least it was sorta different at the time. Now it's lame. Real Life was decent (better than MT, anyway), but the humour isn't sophisticated enough to keep it going for very long. I got tired of it like a year or two ago. 8-Bit Theatre is lame. VG Cats is lame. Toothpaste for Dinner is lame. Sexy Losers is horrible. Mall Rats is lame. PvP is... whatever the adjective that's right below 'OK' on the decency scale is. Ctrl+Alt+Del is lame.
Not that i'm any kind of authority on Web comics, but that's my opinion on the subject, in any case.
You said that 'Joe User' doesn't care about open-source and extensions, so logically instead of Opera you should put them on... Firefox... uh, what.
I mean, i don't care which browser some random guy thinks i should be recommending to my grandma either way, but you basically go out of your way to say that Opera is better for 'Joe User' (who doesn't really care that Firefox is open-source or that it has extensions), and then at the end without any other discussion you act like that logically leads to the conclusion that you should recommend him Firefox. Doesn't really make sense.
Like you said, this is a non-issue for you, but just in case you're curious anyway.
To enable taskbar grouping, right-click somewhere in the taskbar, go to Properties, and then make sure 'Group similar taskbar buttons' is checked. You won't see it until your taskbar starts to get pretty full, but it'll do it.
If you don't like the default behaviour, like how many windows need to be open for it to start grouping or whatever, you can get the free TweakUI tool (which you should have anyway, because it lets you fix a lot of the retarded problems that Windows has by default) from Microsoft's Web site, and that'll let you change it.
Well the people who installed it were recommended by Red Hat. And then Red Hat's support team evidently couldn't help them. Maybe it's just that Red Hat isn't qualified to administer a Linux server like this.
Having someone say 'take me off your/the/some/a list" does nothing. The entity can purchase a new list with your number and call again. So what you have suggested has no ligit purpose. One needs to specifically state that they want their number (name is unnecessary and not relevent) ADDED to the company's do-not-call list. That specificlaly requires the company to add the number to their scrub list. It is this list against which all future lists are to be compared/scrubbed so that you do not get called again.
I had heard that. However, where i worked, we were told to treat them the same, unless they told us that they just wanted to be removed from the CURRENT list. (For example, if we were calling about long-distance, they could ask to be removed from the long-distance list. They'd still get called about Internet and other stuff. They would also still get called about long-distance, eventually; it'd just take a few weeks or months or whatever for Qwest to add them to some other list.) I suppose that makes what i said inaccurate, although it was true for where i worked.
From what part of your anatomy did you get that "you get $500" comment? You are not a whistleblower and are not entitled to recovered funds. Had you been trained properly (or completed your own research) you would know that $500 is not automatic, nor is it some limit. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 provides a private right of action (PROA) (i.e. you have the right to sue the offending entities) thorugh which you are entitled by statute $500 per violation of the law (and there can be many violations in a single call). That amount is set by law and cannot be reduced, however the court in its discredtion can treble (that means triple), the damages if you can shoe the offendind entity violated the law willfully or knowingly.
I guess i didn't know that. I hate to blame it on the training, because i could have sworn i did a little of my own research as well, but i think that's probably where i got it.
I knew all the other stuff that you listed, except the first one and the fact that it was two calls in a 12-month period (i assumed you could call them a few times aftewards, because it was supposed to take a week or two for them to get fully taken off the list, but i didn't know the specifics)
However, i'm sufficiently humbled. Thanks for the education!
No, no, i never said Qwest was an ethical company. I said that their telemarketing operation (if you want to call it that) was legit. I learnt that from working there.
Aside from that, Qwest is a horrible company. I learnt that from working there too.
Sometimes when we called people for Qwest they'd have some problem, like they got billed too much or they got some feature they didn't order or they wanted to take some feature off or put their account on hold or something like that. People actually have a lot of problems with Qwest (most of which are through incompetence rather than anything intentional).
It would've been cool for those of us who didn't care about making sales if we could've helped those people. Like taking a feature off somebody's account is like two or three clicks. But Qwest didn't let us do that. We were just s'posed to give out the dumb 800 number and let those people handle whatever problems they had.
I guess if we could have handled those problems, a lot of the people who felt like we were wasting their time would've been happier, 'cause at least they would've got something out of the call. Oh well.
I dunno. Maybe there's some loop hole in the law or something that allows telemarketers to look up your information. I'm not sure.
I checked Google, though, about Qwest. Their official line is this: Qwest said in its notice that it does not release customer account data to unaffiliated third parties without customer permission "unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate."
However, another site says: Many phone companies (Qwest is a particularly bad offender) sell lists of phone numbers to telemarketers whether or not they are unlisted or unpublished!
Lame. Qwest does suck as a phone company. Like all the other ones, i guess.
I don't know if Qwest sells lists to people, but i do know that being unlisted doesn't protect you from telemarketers in the slightest. Even if Qwest doesn't sell lists, telemarketers can still get your number. So... if you bought unlisted service because you thought it was gonna protect you from telemarketers, unfortunately, you kinda wasted your money.:/
My advice would be to sign up for the DNC list, first of all. Within a few weeks that should take care of 99% of the unsolicited calls from random companies. The only people who should (legally) call you from then on are charities, surveyors, and companies who already do business with you (like Qwest and your credit-card company and your cable company and so on). Whether you get any calls like that will depend on the companies you do business with. Qwest will probably call you about promotions and junk every so often, but i don't know about any other companies. In any case, all of those people are required to stop calling you if you tell them to put you on their do-not-call lists. (If they don't, it's illegal, and you can report them and get them fined.)
That should take pretty much take care of it. If telemarketers really annoy you and you want to be extra-safe, you can get one of those Telezap things (which trick the computers into thinking that your number is disconnected or something like that). And Qwest has various calling features that will work (at the very least) better than the unlisted service, like Anonymous Call Rejection. (Telemarketers are supposed to supply caller-ID information, legally, but i guess if you're having problems with illegal telemarketers you could try that.)
OK. Pause for a second there and think : YOU are BOTHERING them. Is that a good way to attempt to begin a business relationship ? Clearly not.
First of all, i'm talking about Qwest here. Not some random shady company. I never defended those people. I'm talking about people who follow the rules. And if you read my post, sharpest knife in the drawer, you'll see that Qwest only calls people who are already their customers. So the business relationship has already begun.
You dickhead. Just because it is legal does not mean it is good business.
If I own a bricks and mortar business, I am legally allowed to insult people who walk through the door to buy things from me. Come to think of it, I could go out on the sidewalk and yell derogatory comments at people walking by, in the hope that they will enter my store and buy things from them. What a brilliant plan ! So, what do you think : by insulting them, am I going to increase or decrease my sales ? If they ask me to not insult them and I then do it again, is THAT going to increase or decrease my sales ? Do you get it yet ?
Secondly, dickhead, for the dozenth time, thousands of people buy stuff from Qwest over the phone every single day. Some of the people i talked to were glad we called them, because it was just what they needed. I'm not going to pretend like any kind of majority appreciate it, but obivously it works well enough, and some people don't get pissed off about it like you. It wasn't profitable, the company wouldn't fucking do it. Duh.
You're not allowed to be obscene with people. That's harassment.
If you're getting people like that, they're either individuals who aren't doing their jobs right or they're shady companies who don't care about the law. (And if they're still calling you even though you're on the DNC list, i'm inclined to believe it's the latter.)
I'm assuming you've done your research on the subject, because i'm not entirely sure if there's anything you can do about Canadian telemarketers myself. If they were in America, though, you would totally be getting money out of the deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe he's just a professional troll, like Ann Coulter or Marilyn Manson, and we should all just ignore him instead of giving him the attention he thinks he deserves?
Really wish you guys would stop doing that. Whenever anybody mentions anything related to ads in any way (even when they're talking about blocking the ads) some wisenheimer has to go WHAT ADS I USE FIREFOX AM I MISSIN OUT ON SOMTHIN LOL ???
You are not clever because you use Firefox, OK. Nobody is impressed. Especially not on Slashdot, where EVERYBODY has known how to block ads for ages now.
I've got a Myspace page, because it's the most convenient way to keep in touch with some of my old classmates. I've often thought about how few practical applications these kinds of 'social networking' sites provide, aside from general time-wasting. I've also scoffed at the number of young kids who have thousands of friends, as if it's the high school popularity contest in digital form.
Yeah, well, you're gonna expect that anywhere i guess. LiveJournal, Xanga, MySpace, BlogSpot, where-ever. I personally think MySpace does the best job of 'bringing it all together', though (blogs, message boards, friends, profiles, it's all so interconnected).
That said, MySpace is probably one of the worst-written sites of all time. Tom seems like a swell guy (i've talked to him a few times), but he and/or his team couldn't design a site if their lives depended on it. I mean that in terms of both the HTML and the 'server-side' stuff. They're constantly doing maintenance (which hardly ever seems to fix anything); they do completely random text-filtering (like you can't say '% of', the system will strip it out); the time zones are always wrong; you have to post blogs twice sometimes in order to get the auto-formatting to work; their HTML/CSS is terrible (most of their ids and classes have illegal names); the blog's design editor is retarded because the default style sheet is set to override your custom style sheet (so i'm not sure what the point is of even having the option); and so on.
Tom says he's working on a 'CSS-friendly' version of MySpace, and it seems like that's the case because suddenly there's a bunch of unused stuff if you look at the style sheet, but i have doubts that it's actually going to be much better. ... Or if it's even going to be 'CSS-friendly'.
:shrug:
The phrase supposedly started in America a few decades ago, but it's spread to the rest of the world by now. The etymology isn't entirely clear (some people think it could've been intended to be sarcastic, or that it was misread in print), but it's probably the simplest one -- it's the same reason people say 'case and point' and 'for all intensive purposes' and 'supposively'. People say it so often that eventually some of them become ignorant of the actual meaning and just repeat it however.
I don't think most people actually intend to say it incorrectly but, in my experience, they also refuse to change when they are told that it's wrong. I guess they just... couldn't... care less....
What makes you so sure it had anything to do with either of them? She lives in Brooklyn, maybe she's exposed to gangs and fights in real life all the time. Or maybe her mom was completely irresponsible and just never taught her right from wrong.
Anyway, if you were going to make a case that it was one or the other, i should think that it's more likely to have been 'caused' by video games than by HBO. When somebody gets stabbed in the chest on HBO, they bleed and they're in pain and they die. The consequences are pretty clear, even to a child. That's not always the case in video games.
In most states you can have the DMV print you a 'regular' ID. Won't let you drive, but it has your name and picture and age and stuff.
Minors could also probably use non-state-issued IDs in some cases, like school IDs and Y cards and stuff like that, if they contain proof of age.
Don't know why that matters, though, if they're not old enough to buy the game anyway.
I can't tell if this was just a typing error or not, and i know it wasn't really important to your point, but.
I have 29 ounces or less of Coke each day, and that's about all the caffeine I have (occasionally I'll have a chocolate candy bar or something, but that's rare I believe that's roughly the same amount of caffeine as a single cup of coffee, maybe slightly more.
Chocolate doesn't really have that much caffeine in it. It obviously depends on the type of chocolate and the amount, but i think your standard candy bar has less caffeine than a can of soda. And those '29 ounces' (that's a pretty random number, but OK) of Coke have less caffeine combined than a normal cup of coffee.
I didn't understand that part either. I'm not a psychologist or anything, but i have an anxiety disorder (or two or three), and i have certainly been aware of it for as long as i've had it. Maybe not the scientific name of the disorder or the specific symptoms, but it certainly was known to me that what i was experiencing wasn't rational (or 'normal').
On top of that, everything i've read or been told, from Wikipedia to my therapist to the text books, has said that people with anxiety disorders are usually aware of their behaviour. Like if you have OCD, you usually know you're being a little unreasonable. You might not have the ambition to do something about it, but you know it's there.
Maybe it's different for more serious anxiety disorders, i don't know.
Walmart's most prized possesion is their billion-billion-billion transaction customer sales database. They use it to find things like, among other things, men tend to buy beer and diapers at the time.
I don't know a single thing about Wal-Mart's 'billion-billion-billion transaction customer sales database', so i'm curious about this.
How exactly does Wal-Mart know stuff like that? I don't know about men buying diapers and beer, but i, for one, have been to Wal-Mart many times in many different cities, and i don't recall any way that they could possibly have ever known my gender, unless their employees were watching me and marking it down secretly.
I think that most Web comics are incredibly unamusing. VG Cats is one especially. I don't know where most Web-comic artists get their sense of humour, but it's incredibly lame. When i read stuff like VG Cats and Sexy Losers and 8-Bit Theatre i just imagine that the intended audience is like some furry who hangs out on rôle-playing boards and punctuates all of his sentences with ^___^;;;;
The only Web comics i can think of that i like are Penny Arcade (which is maybe a little over-rated, and the whole 'tube ninja' thing is retarded, but for the most part it's funny) and Pokey the Penguin (which is pretty much humanity's greatest artistic achievement). And Perry Bible Fellowship is good most of the time, too, but i don't think that's strictly a Web comic, is it? Same thing with Dilbert. (They're both rooted in the news papers, i thought. I dunno.)
MegaTokyo was OK when it first started. Not great, but at least it was sorta different at the time. Now it's lame. Real Life was decent (better than MT, anyway), but the humour isn't sophisticated enough to keep it going for very long. I got tired of it like a year or two ago. 8-Bit Theatre is lame. VG Cats is lame. Toothpaste for Dinner is lame. Sexy Losers is horrible. Mall Rats is lame. PvP is... whatever the adjective that's right below 'OK' on the decency scale is. Ctrl+Alt+Del is lame.
Not that i'm any kind of authority on Web comics, but that's my opinion on the subject, in any case.
Um. I don't understand the thing you wrote.
You said that 'Joe User' doesn't care about open-source and extensions, so logically instead of Opera you should put them on... Firefox... uh, what.
I mean, i don't care which browser some random guy thinks i should be recommending to my grandma either way, but you basically go out of your way to say that Opera is better for 'Joe User' (who doesn't really care that Firefox is open-source or that it has extensions), and then at the end without any other discussion you act like that logically leads to the conclusion that you should recommend him Firefox. Doesn't really make sense.
Like you said, this is a non-issue for you, but just in case you're curious anyway.
To enable taskbar grouping, right-click somewhere in the taskbar, go to Properties, and then make sure 'Group similar taskbar buttons' is checked. You won't see it until your taskbar starts to get pretty full, but it'll do it.
If you don't like the default behaviour, like how many windows need to be open for it to start grouping or whatever, you can get the free TweakUI tool (which you should have anyway, because it lets you fix a lot of the retarded problems that Windows has by default) from Microsoft's Web site, and that'll let you change it.
Hm, guess they edited it pretty fast. I read it almost as soon as it hit the front page and it was there. BUT MY BAD, AIGHT, YO
What sort of moron was doing the RH install?
The sort of moron that Red Hat recommended to them.
Well the people who installed it were recommended by Red Hat. And then Red Hat's support team evidently couldn't help them. Maybe it's just that Red Hat isn't qualified to administer a Linux server like this.
Read the article
Or even the summary.
Having someone say 'take me off your/the/some/a list" does nothing. The entity can purchase a new list with your number and call again. So what you have suggested has no ligit purpose. One needs to specifically state that they want their number (name is unnecessary and not relevent) ADDED to the company's do-not-call list. That specificlaly requires the company to add the number to their scrub list. It is this list against which all future lists are to be compared/scrubbed so that you do not get called again.
I had heard that. However, where i worked, we were told to treat them the same, unless they told us that they just wanted to be removed from the CURRENT list. (For example, if we were calling about long-distance, they could ask to be removed from the long-distance list. They'd still get called about Internet and other stuff. They would also still get called about long-distance, eventually; it'd just take a few weeks or months or whatever for Qwest to add them to some other list.) I suppose that makes what i said inaccurate, although it was true for where i worked.
From what part of your anatomy did you get that "you get $500" comment? You are not a whistleblower and are not entitled to recovered funds. Had you been trained properly (or completed your own research) you would know that $500 is not automatic, nor is it some limit. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 provides a private right of action (PROA) (i.e. you have the right to sue the offending entities) thorugh which you are entitled by statute $500 per violation of the law (and there can be many violations in a single call). That amount is set by law and cannot be reduced, however the court in its discredtion can treble (that means triple), the damages if you can shoe the offendind entity violated the law willfully or knowingly.
I guess i didn't know that. I hate to blame it on the training, because i could have sworn i did a little of my own research as well, but i think that's probably where i got it.
I knew all the other stuff that you listed, except the first one and the fact that it was two calls in a 12-month period (i assumed you could call them a few times aftewards, because it was supposed to take a week or two for them to get fully taken off the list, but i didn't know the specifics)
However, i'm sufficiently humbled. Thanks for the education!
No, no, i never said Qwest was an ethical company. I said that their telemarketing operation (if you want to call it that) was legit. I learnt that from working there.
Aside from that, Qwest is a horrible company. I learnt that from working there too.
Sometimes when we called people for Qwest they'd have some problem, like they got billed too much or they got some feature they didn't order or they wanted to take some feature off or put their account on hold or something like that. People actually have a lot of problems with Qwest (most of which are through incompetence rather than anything intentional).
It would've been cool for those of us who didn't care about making sales if we could've helped those people. Like taking a feature off somebody's account is like two or three clicks. But Qwest didn't let us do that. We were just s'posed to give out the dumb 800 number and let those people handle whatever problems they had.
I guess if we could have handled those problems, a lot of the people who felt like we were wasting their time would've been happier, 'cause at least they would've got something out of the call. Oh well.
I dunno. Maybe there's some loop hole in the law or something that allows telemarketers to look up your information. I'm not sure.
I checked Google, though, about Qwest. Their official line is this: Qwest said in its notice that it does not release customer account data to unaffiliated third parties without customer permission "unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate."
However, another site says: Many phone companies (Qwest is a particularly bad offender) sell lists of phone numbers to telemarketers whether or not they are unlisted or unpublished!
Lame. Qwest does suck as a phone company. Like all the other ones, i guess.
I didn't complain about irritated people. Being irritated is understandable. I complained about stupid irritated people. :/
I don't know if Qwest sells lists to people, but i do know that being unlisted doesn't protect you from telemarketers in the slightest. Even if Qwest doesn't sell lists, telemarketers can still get your number. So... if you bought unlisted service because you thought it was gonna protect you from telemarketers, unfortunately, you kinda wasted your money. :/
My advice would be to sign up for the DNC list, first of all. Within a few weeks that should take care of 99% of the unsolicited calls from random companies. The only people who should (legally) call you from then on are charities, surveyors, and companies who already do business with you (like Qwest and your credit-card company and your cable company and so on). Whether you get any calls like that will depend on the companies you do business with. Qwest will probably call you about promotions and junk every so often, but i don't know about any other companies. In any case, all of those people are required to stop calling you if you tell them to put you on their do-not-call lists. (If they don't, it's illegal, and you can report them and get them fined.)
That should take pretty much take care of it. If telemarketers really annoy you and you want to be extra-safe, you can get one of those Telezap things (which trick the computers into thinking that your number is disconnected or something like that). And Qwest has various calling features that will work (at the very least) better than the unlisted service, like Anonymous Call Rejection. (Telemarketers are supposed to supply caller-ID information, legally, but i guess if you're having problems with illegal telemarketers you could try that.)
OK. Pause for a second there and think : YOU are BOTHERING them. Is that a good way to attempt to begin a business relationship ? Clearly not.
First of all, i'm talking about Qwest here. Not some random shady company. I never defended those people. I'm talking about people who follow the rules. And if you read my post, sharpest knife in the drawer, you'll see that Qwest only calls people who are already their customers. So the business relationship has already begun.
You dickhead. Just because it is legal does not mean it is good business.
If I own a bricks and mortar business, I am legally allowed to insult people who walk through the door to buy things from me. Come to think of it, I could go out on the sidewalk and yell derogatory comments at people walking by, in the hope that they will enter my store and buy things from them. What a brilliant plan ! So, what do you think : by insulting them, am I going to increase or decrease my sales ? If they ask me to not insult them and I then do it again, is THAT going to increase or decrease my sales ? Do you get it yet ?
Secondly, dickhead, for the dozenth time, thousands of people buy stuff from Qwest over the phone every single day. Some of the people i talked to were glad we called them, because it was just what they needed. I'm not going to pretend like any kind of majority appreciate it, but obivously it works well enough, and some people don't get pissed off about it like you. It wasn't profitable, the company wouldn't fucking do it. Duh.
You're not allowed to be obscene with people. That's harassment.
If you're getting people like that, they're either individuals who aren't doing their jobs right or they're shady companies who don't care about the law. (And if they're still calling you even though you're on the DNC list, i'm inclined to believe it's the latter.)
I'm assuming you've done your research on the subject, because i'm not entirely sure if there's anything you can do about Canadian telemarketers myself. If they were in America, though, you would totally be getting money out of the deal.
It is for the thousands and thousands of customers who get called every day by Qwest and don't get pissed off about it.