🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:46:03 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce"
<mcpierce@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>>        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.
>
>As annoying as they can be, why should they be shut down through legal
>means?

	Because they are illegally using my private personal property
for their gain.  When they set foot past the edge of my property line
( in the case of the phone system, if they use anything or any
equipment or power past the demark point of the telco ), they are
violating my rights.

  No different than if they set up a road side melon stand at the edge
of the road, *in my yard*.   A civilised society suggests that they be
stopped by law and by that collective societal action known as
'government' rather than my taking things into my own hands and merely
taking shotgun practise on their melons.

> If they're in business, then they're obviously provider a service
>to someone that's sufficient to keep them in business. The service
>they're providing is not illegal, so your desire has no rational basis.

	Their provider has no right in law or morals to sell anyone
the use of anything past my demark point, where their property ends
and mine begins - aka my wires, my phone, my mahcines.

>
>> 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. 
>
>The ends do not justify the means.

	Another meaningless nonsequitor.

	The ends are at the demarcation point of the network.  This is
clearly defined as 'the little screw terminal inside the little box on
the side of the house where the wire from the street hooks up to the
wire into my house'.

	The screw itself, the box itself, and anything on the street
side of it, belong to the telco.  Everything else belongs to me, and
no one is allowed to use any tiny piece of it without my permission.

	My permission may, at my discretion, be express ( 'My friend
Joe is allowed to call me' ), or implied .  My denial of permissoin
can also be express ( Joe's wife is not allowed to call me, and
tele-asshles are not allowed to call me ) or implied.

	The express expression ( if you'll pardon the phrase ) of my
wishes that no tele-asshole make any use, at any time, of any nature,
of anything that I own - including my premises wiring, my phone unit,
etc, is clearly sufficient under law to require them not to.

	What they do up to the demark point is between them and the
telco, who owns all of that.  What they do past that little box, on my
property both physical and virtual, is decided by me.

	I don't want them using my wires.

	I don't want them using the machine I bought and paid for
called '**MY** telephone'.  It is called '*MY** telephone rather than
just '*A PUBLIC ** telephone, because I bought and paid for it.  It is
mine.

	I don't want them using one single thing I own, and that is
clearly delineated, at the demark box, at that little screw where the
wires come together from street to house.  Street side of that, I have
no say, it doesn't belong to me.  House side of that, I have all the
say, it all belongs to me.  And I don't want them using it.	

	That is all clearly spelled out in the contracts that both
they and I signed with the telco.  Telco rules up to the demark, my
rules past that very preciese, very simple, physical point.

 

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