🚀 go-pugleaf

<pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote in message
news:dc99nvcvgg3f90e6oski8gftulr81i2npe@4ax.com...
> 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.

When you connect your phone to the telephone network, by default you are
allowing (authorizing) others to call you on "your" equipment.  This is a
general statement given if you have a standard phone service.  You can tell
you phone service that you don't want certain people to call you: ie. those
who use caller id protection & those orignating from numbers you tell the
phone company to block (there may also be other ways that I don't know
about).  There are ways to handle this outside more regulation.

Besides the truth of the matter is, this law - like so many others - won't
do a damn thing.  It will not stop people from calling you during dinner to
ask for money (donations or in exchange for goods or services).  Do you
understand that?

Fred