🚀 go-pugleaf

Geoff Miller wrote:
> George Grapman  <sfgeorge@pacbell.net> writes:
> 
>> I got an automated call from a candidate last night. 
> 
> [...]
> 
>> I noted that had there been an emergency I would have lost
>> about 30 seconds.
> 
> 
> So get call waiting.  Problem solved.  Is this a great country,
> or what?  There's nothing you can't get here in the Big PX.
> 
> Your objection comes across as a bit sanctimonious.  If you don't
> have call waiting, you potentially miss an emergency call every
> time you're on the phone -- especially when you engage in the
> sort of extended, casual chitchat with friends and family that we
> all use our telephones for from time to time.
> 
> It seems to me that if you were as concerned about missing emer-
> gency calls as you profess to be, you'd limit the number and 
> duration of your own calls to the absolute minimum.  And it's
> possible that you do just that -- but it isn't terribly likely. 
> So why not just be forthright about what really bugs you, and 
> tell the candidate that his automated calls are objectionable
> because they're annoying and intrusive?  Seems to me, that's 
> plenty good enough.
> 
> _My_ objection to automated calls is a bit different.  I've been
> getting an awful lot of election-related phone spam of late.
> There was yet another automated message on my answering machine
> when I came home last Friday evening.  Being tired after a long 
> day, not to mention sick of telephonic political pestering, I 
> listened to just enough of it to determine that it was yet another
> recording and then hit the Delete button.
> 
> The next morning I read a transcript of the recording in a local-
> interest newsgroup, ba.mountain-folk; it turned out that everyone
> in my community had received it:
> 
> "This is the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's department with a recorded
>  message.  It's 7:20pm on the 20th of October.  We're calling to 
>  notify the residents of the Boulder Creek area that we are looking
>  for an armed and dangerous, wanted subject who may be on foot in 
>  your area.  His name is Bobby Dean Wilson.  He's a white male in
>  his 40's.  He's approximately 5 feet, 9 inches tall and he has a
>  stocky build, with shaggy, reddish-blond hair and a moustache, and
>  no clothing description at this time.  He is considered armed and
>  dangerous.  If you see him or anyone suspicious in your area after
>  receiving this message, please stay inside or remain in a safe 
>  place, and call 9-1-1 immediately.  Thank you." 
> 
> Neat, eh?
> 
> Granted, I probably should've listened to the message a _bit_ longer
> than I did, but I was tired after a long day, it was Friday evening,
> and I was in one of those "Leave me the the hell alone, world" moods.
> 
> Maybe this raises a good reason to consider outlawing automated phone
> calls not of an emergency nature.  If people get inured to them to the
> point where they delete them without even listening to them, there's a
> certain "boy who cried 'wolf'" dynamic at work that will eventually
> cause somebody to miss something he really does need to hear. 
> 
> 
   True, I have call waiting but while the blurb is playing a caller 
gets a busy signal.

-- 
   To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell