🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:17:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
<NoSpam@Ham.com> wrote:

>
><pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote in message
>news:02n8nv806147saaks9rvdjqsmbbrg067p8@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:17:43 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>> <NoSpam@Ham.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Susan Hogarth" <sjh@tribeagles.org> wrote
>> >
>> >> You've put your finger on the problem. Why should the taxpayers pay for
>> >*your*
>> >> no trespassing sign? That's between you and the phone company you do
>> >business
>> >> with.
>>
>> No, it's not.  No more than the no trepassing sign in my yard,
>> which carries weight and effect only because it's backed up by
>> criminal penalties enforced by the government.
>
>That's an irrelevant bonus of a legal system.  Your unlisted phone
>number contract would also be enforcable by the government.

	Not under any existing law.  Which is why we need a new law.
One that does not deprive me of the right to have a listed phone
number, just as the law that enforces the No Trespassing sign does not
deprive me of the right to have an address.

	You are saying that all I have to do to get rid of salesmen
knocking on the door is not have an address, or a driveway.  That's
incredibly stupid.

>Tresspass sometimes gets legislated, but usually is a common
>law matter just like simple contracts.  (Durham still uses common
>law trespass, fwiw).
>
>But, even Common Law treats tresspass much differently than
>contract issues.  Contracts are civil, you owe *damages* in
>monetary form.  Physical tresspass is criminal.
>
>> >The funny part is that all these allegedly pissed-off
>> >people can't be bothered to call the phone company
>> >and bitch about this once a month.  If everyone did
>> >that, the phone company would have strong incentive
>> >to do something about it.
>>
>> They wouldn't do a thing and you know it.
>
>No, I don't know it.  The costs in dealing with it would be real.
>
>> And they couldn't, legally, anyway.
>
>They already offer quite a few services to deal with it.
>
>> >Every now and then around here, new management
>> >at a local TV station makes the mistake of cutting
>> >away from a local ACC basketball game.  Consumer
>> >reaction is swift and furious, the problem is quickly
>> >fixed, and profuse apologies are offered the next day.
>>
>> Irrelevant analogy.  That is a company changing its own
>> actions based on customer input, which is very different from asking
>> them to change someone else's actions, which they do not control.
>
>I'm sorry if you can't understand that phone companies make
>money by offering various services to potential customers,
>and they need to have a good idea who wants what (and
>what is more profitable, of course).

	I'm sorry if you can't understand that I want the
telemarketing industry shut down, and this law will take a great big
step towards doing that.  I want spammers shut down, too, the whole
spamming industry, and if it takes laws to do it ( and it does ) then
so be it. 


>
>Yeah, you might have to pay for it.  Boo-hoo...that's better
>than me paying for it.

	{ putting on liberal leftist socialist mask here }  No, it's
not.  { / mask }

>
>--Ted
>
>


Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me

New HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's !!  http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free demo now available online !!!!
-- 
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
My personal site is at  http://www.pmilligan.net