1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

NEWS: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by PDA Man, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    In article <vunbnvsir0n9ojtmgjpos1g7dio8abo7ih@4ax.com>,=20
    billgates@microsoft.com says...
    > Do they all have major telemarketing companies in their districts? Or are
    > they claiming principle?
    >=20


    Who says both aren't true?

    --=20
    -+-
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    I work for SprintPCS
    I *don't* speak for them.



    › See More: NEWS: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
  2. David S

    David S Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:04:48 -0400, Mark Allread <mallread@flatsurface.com>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:40:31 GMT, Stuart Friedman <stu@nospam.na> wrote:
    >
    >> Limiting door-to-door
    >> solicitors to certain time periods is content nuetral. Requirement permits
    >> using content nuetral criteria is ok). The problems comes in when Government
    >> targets certain messages. Maintaining a national do not call list is
    >> content nuetral. It is the exceptions to the list that got the
    >> government into trouble.


    So take out the exceptions -- I don't want to hear from the politicians or
    charities, either.

    >Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
    >liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
    >porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
    >and drug labelling.


    Liquor ads were never officially banned, it was just a gentlemen's
    agreement which is now starting to fall by the wayside.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "'And if that Billy goat don't shed, papa's gonna buy you ... a squirrel
    named Ed.'" - Dave Barry
  3. David S

    David S Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:59:57 -0700, "Peter Pan"
    <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
    life, the universe, and everything:

    >"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    >news:GaidnbNwE7YpPOmiU-KYgw@lmi.net...
    >> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Peter Pan <Marcs1102nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> > Excuse me Telemarketer lover,

    >>
    >> I think you're overreacting. Stuart was stating facts, not saying he was
    >> happy that the idiot in Denver made the decision he made.
    >>

    >Just out of curiosity, why did you snip the rest of the message?
    >
    >The part you snipped:
    ><paste>
    >Ever try and call 911 (a service that we pay for) when a telemarketer has
    >the phone line tied up? Ever have your security alarm try and call the
    >police or fire but can't because some telemarketer has your phone line tied
    >up? Ever get telemarketing calls on your cellphone where YOU have to pay for
    >the incoming call airtime the telemarketer uses?
    ><End Paste>


    Kindly show me where that material was in the post he responded to.

    >I guess from your statements that you believe the rights of free speech for
    >telemarketers trump the right of people to call for emergency assistance
    >with a service they PAY for?


    You guess wrong. As he has tried to explain to you, just because he
    explained the judge's opinion does not mean that he agrees with it.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "I consider myself to be the most important figure in the world."
    - Idi Amin
  4. David S

    David S Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:07:49 -0700, "Peter Pan"
    <Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
    life, the universe, and everything:

    > Come to think
    >of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
    >during prime time?


    You don't see telemarketing services on TV because they aren't selling
    themselves to a general audience. Their clients, however, DO also advertise
    on TV. A major example would be credit card services. I get more calls
    about credit cards than everything else put together, yet the companies
    that call me (or hire a service to call me) also mail me and are all over
    the tube.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Damn colonels! Can't trust any of 'em." - Colonel Sherman Potter
  5. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:35:38 GMT, David S <billgates@microsoft.com> wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:04:48 -0400, Mark Allread
    > <mallread@flatsurface.com>
    > chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    > everything:


    >> Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
    >> liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
    >> porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
    >> and drug labelling.

    >
    > Liquor ads were never officially banned, it was just a gentlemen's
    > agreement which is now starting to fall by the wayside.


    You can't read. The word "and" is a conjunctive, which you have not
    satisfied.

    You have failed to explain cigarette ads, from which we must conclude that
    you agree that non-content neutral restrictions on free speech have been
    enacted and allowed by the courts.

    --
    Mark
  6. Dan

    Dan Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    I'll drink to that

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:42:20 -0400, Mark Allread
    <mallread@flatsurface.com> wrote:

    > Liquor ads were never officially banned, it was just a gentlemen's
    > agreement which is now starting to fall by the wayside.
  7. David S

    David S Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:42:20 -0400, Mark Allread <mallread@flatsurface.com>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:35:38 GMT, David S <billgates@microsoft.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:04:48 -0400, Mark Allread
    >> <mallread@flatsurface.com>
    >> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    >> everything:

    >
    >>> Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
    >>> liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
    >>> porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
    >>> and drug labelling.

    >>
    >> Liquor ads were never officially banned, it was just a gentlemen's
    >> agreement which is now starting to fall by the wayside.

    >
    >You can't read. The word "and" is a conjunctive, which you have not
    >satisfied.
    >
    >You have failed to explain cigarette ads, from which we must conclude that
    >you agree that non-content neutral restrictions on free speech have been
    >enacted and allowed by the courts.


    Bullshit. I was not attempting to explain cigarette ads or any other crap,
    nor was I making any sort of comment on restrictions on free speech. I was
    only pointing out that one of the examples you used in your argument was
    invalid.

    Conjunction Junction was not my function.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Here lies Captain Ernest Bloomfield. Accidentally shot by his orderly,
    March 2nd, 1879. Well done, good and faithful servant." - inscription on
    British soldier's grave in Northwest Frontier of modern-day Pakistan
  8. David S

    David S Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:35:40 GMT, I <me> chose to add this to the great
    equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:59:57 -0700, "Peter Pan"
    ><Marcs1102nospam@Hotmail.com> chose to add this to the great equation of
    >life, the universe, and everything:
    >
    >>"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    >>news:GaidnbNwE7YpPOmiU-KYgw@lmi.net...
    >>> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Peter Pan <Marcs1102nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>> > Excuse me Telemarketer lover,
    >>>
    >>> I think you're overreacting. Stuart was stating facts, not saying he was
    >>> happy that the idiot in Denver made the decision he made.
    >>>

    >>Just out of curiosity, why did you snip the rest of the message?
    >>
    >>The part you snipped:
    >><paste>
    >>Ever try and call 911 (a service that we pay for) when a telemarketer has
    >>the phone line tied up? Ever have your security alarm try and call the
    >>police or fire but can't because some telemarketer has your phone line tied
    >>up? Ever get telemarketing calls on your cellphone where YOU have to pay for
    >>the incoming call airtime the telemarketer uses?
    >><End Paste>

    >
    >Kindly show me where that material was in the post he responded to.


    I found it... in a totally separate thread, meaning that he *didn't* snip
    it.

    --
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    email address adjusted due to the rash of viruses; use the Reply-To
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant? I'm halfway through my
    fishburger and I realize, Oh my God... I could be eating a slow learner!"
    - Lynda Montgomery
  9. Steve Hanson

    Steve Hanson Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    Mark F wrote in <vnb2h7e5v3qje3@corp.supernews.com>:

    >I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    >supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    >to Free Speech.


    Well anything goes since Griswold but there isn't an actual right to
    privacy enumerated in the Constitution.
  10. Steve Hanson

    Steve Hanson Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    Peter Pan wrote in <bl4g55$7nom1$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de>:

    >
    >"Mark F" <askme@askme.com> wrote in message
    >news:vnb2h7e5v3qje3@corp.supernews.com...
    >> I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    >> supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    >> to Free Speech.
    >>

    >
    >
    >Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
    >speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
    >the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
    >For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
    >advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
    >movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
    >of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
    >during prime time?


    Gee you mean the reason why ABC doesn't run KKK recruitment ads is
    because the government restricts commercial speech? You are confused.
  11. Steve Hanson

    Steve Hanson Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    Mark Allread wrote in <oprv9b0uxkbsorsk@news.chartermi.com>:

    >On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:35:38 GMT, David S <billgates@microsoft.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:04:48 -0400, Mark Allread
    >> <mallread@flatsurface.com>
    >> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    >> everything:

    >
    >>> Please explain the non-content neutral ban on broadcast cigarette and
    >>> liquor ads. Please explain the non-content neutral illegality of child
    >>> porn. Please explain the non-content neutral requirements for nutrition
    >>> and drug labelling.

    >>
    >> Liquor ads were never officially banned, it was just a gentlemen's
    >> agreement which is now starting to fall by the wayside.

    >
    >You can't read. The word "and" is a conjunctive, which you have not
    >satisfied.
    >
    >You have failed to explain cigarette ads, from which we must conclude that
    >you agree that non-content neutral restrictions on free speech have been
    >enacted and allowed by the courts.


    The tobacco companies have made various agreements over the years to
    restrict advertising, and of course all businesses are free to turn
    away sponsors. Is there some reason you don't bother learning any of
    this stuff before spouting off?
  12. plaguebeast

    plaguebeast Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    "Steve Hanson" <devbugs@apple.com> wrote in message
    news:5es1ovone5b0j38smvfi65ic29o1qgj6tg@4ax.com...
    > Mark F wrote in <vnb2h7e5v3qje3@corp.supernews.com>:
    >
    > >I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    > >supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    > >to Free Speech.

    >
    > Well anything goes since Griswold but there isn't an actual right to
    > privacy enumerated in the Constitution.


    what about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ?
  13. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 04:45:21 GMT, Steve Hanson <devbugs@apple.com> wrote:

    > Mark Allread wrote in <oprv9b0uxkbsorsk@news.chartermi.com>:


    >> You have failed to explain cigarette ads, from which we must conclude
    >> that
    >> you agree that non-content neutral restrictions on free speech have been
    >> enacted and allowed by the courts.

    >
    > The tobacco companies have made various agreements over the years to
    > restrict advertising, and of course all businesses are free to turn
    > away sponsors. Is there some reason you don't bother learning any of
    > this stuff before spouting off?


    Cigarette ads on TV are prohibited by US Law, and have been since the
    '70's, which
    you could quickly Google if you're head weren't up your ass.

    --
    Mark
  14. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 04:39:50 GMT, Steve Hanson <devbugs@apple.com> wrote:

    > Mark F wrote in <vnb2h7e5v3qje3@corp.supernews.com>:
    >
    >> I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    >> supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    >> to Free Speech.

    >
    > Well anything goes since Griswold but there isn't an actual right to
    > privacy enumerated in the Constitution.


    Rights simply exist, whether enumerated or not. The founding fathers,
    obviously MUCH smarter than you, understood this. There was great debate
    over adding the Bill of Rights, because some of them thought that idiots
    like you would read it to mean that any rights not listed didn't exist.
    In the end, they decided that without a Bill of Rights, idiots like John
    Ashcroft would assume that citizens had NO rights without it.

    --
    Mark
  15. Phillipe2004

    Phillipe2004 Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    In article <oprwmcxasbbsorsk@news.chartermi.com>,
    Mark Allread <mallread@flatsurface.com> wrote:

    > > Mark F wrote in <vnb2h7e5v3qje3@corp.supernews.com>:
    > >
    > >> I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    > >> supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    > >> to Free Speech.



    I don't recall in the Consitituion a "Requirement to Listen". You want
    to be strapped down to hear Al Sharpton? Mary Carey maybe.
  16. O/Siris

    O/Siris Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    In article <oprwmcxasbbsorsk@news.chartermi.com>, Mark=20
    Allreadmallread@flatsurface.com says...
    > There was great debate
    > over adding the Bill of Rights, because some of them thought that idiots
    > like you would read it to mean that any rights not listed didn't exist.
    >=20


    Mark didn't say any right doesn't exist. He simply pointed out, accurately=
    ,=20
    that it's not enumerated.

    --=20
    -+-
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    I work for SprintPCS
    I *don't* speak for them.
  17. Steve Hanson

    Steve Hanson Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    Mark Allread wrote in <oprwmcrjkdbsorsk@news.chartermi.com>:

    >On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 04:45:21 GMT, Steve Hanson <devbugs@apple.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Mark Allread wrote in <oprv9b0uxkbsorsk@news.chartermi.com>:

    >
    >>> You have failed to explain cigarette ads, from which we must conclude
    >>> that
    >>> you agree that non-content neutral restrictions on free speech have been
    >>> enacted and allowed by the courts.

    >>
    >> The tobacco companies have made various agreements over the years to
    >> restrict advertising, and of course all businesses are free to turn
    >> away sponsors. Is there some reason you don't bother learning any of
    >> this stuff before spouting off?

    >
    >Cigarette ads on TV are prohibited by US Law, and have been since the
    >'70's, which
    >you could quickly Google if you're head weren't up your ass.


    My, both belligerant and ignorant. I suspect I'm in the presence of a
    friendless loser.

    Tobacco companies have indeed made numerous agreements over the years
    to restrict advertising. Federal law about television ads only
    applies to broadcasters (as you yourself note) because of the way
    spectrum is controlled and so really it's a rather poor example to
    bring up. All sorts of special standards apply to public airwaves
    which don't apply to other commercial speech. But then why do I
    suspect you have a mind incapable of making fine distinctions? It
    couldn't be your extremely clever posts here that make me think that.
  18. Steve Hanson

    Steve Hanson Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    Mark Allread wrote in <oprwmcxasbbsorsk@news.chartermi.com>:

    >On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 04:39:50 GMT, Steve Hanson <devbugs@apple.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Mark F wrote in <vnb2h7e5v3qje3@corp.supernews.com>:
    >>
    >>> I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    >>> supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    >>> to Free Speech.

    >>
    >> Well anything goes since Griswold but there isn't an actual right to
    >> privacy enumerated in the Constitution.

    >
    >Rights simply exist, whether enumerated or not. The founding fathers,
    >obviously MUCH smarter than you, understood this. There was great debate
    >over adding the Bill of Rights, because some of them thought that idiots
    >like you would read it to mean that any rights not listed didn't exist.
    >In the end, they decided that without a Bill of Rights, idiots like John
    >Ashcroft would assume that citizens had NO rights without it.


    Astonishing, since some of the finest legal minds agree with me that a
    right to privacy isn't enumerated in the Constitution and was created
    around the time of Griswold by activist jurists (a point of some
    controversy, which you'd know if you had clue 1 on this topic).
    Rights have distinctions you know. Do you know what a fundamental
    right is? Do you know anything about the case I cited? Do you know
    what the reference in the recent Lawrence v. Texas was about? Do you
    know how to tie your shoes?

    You claim: Rights simply exist, whether enumerated or not. Well how
    the fuck do you know which rights you have and which you don't? Then
    you contradict yourself a couple of seconds later by admitting that
    the bill of rights enumerates rights specifically because people would
    have no guaranteed rights otherwise. Which, you know, is what I said.
    You are one confused cretin.
  19. Steve Hanson

    Steve Hanson Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    plaguebeast wrote in <jx7gb.18670$9a7.15119@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:

    >
    >"Steve Hanson" <devbugs@apple.com> wrote in message
    >news:5es1ovone5b0j38smvfi65ic29o1qgj6tg@4ax.com...
    >> Mark F wrote in <vnb2h7e5v3qje3@corp.supernews.com>:
    >>
    >> >I want to add to this as we also have a "Right To Privacy" that should
    >> >supersede the Telemarketers claim that it impedes their supposed Right
    >> >to Free Speech.

    >>
    >> Well anything goes since Griswold but there isn't an actual right to
    >> privacy enumerated in the Constitution.

    >
    >what about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ?
    >

    Somehow I didn't find the word "privacy" in that phrase. I must be
    going blind because otherwise your statement would be a non sequitur.
  20. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill

    On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:05:24 GMT, Steve Hanson <devbugs@apple.com> wrote:

    > It
    > couldn't be your extremely clever posts here that make me think that.


    Since you're incapable of intelligent thought, that statement is a
    tautology.

    --
    Mark

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?