🚀 go-pugleaf

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.  

Despite your emotions, they are not using your equipment. You are.

> 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.

What rights are those being violated? They have not touched your physical 
possessions. They have not used your services. That have not extracted a 
penny from you. So what have they done to you, other than cause your 
conditioning to kick in and have you answer the phone? Be specific, please.

<snip more of the same "using my property" invalid logic>

>> 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.

You just don't seem to be able to think past your flawed reasoning. They 
are not using your service, you are. If you don't answer the phone, they 
have done nothing to you. 

>>> 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.

Look at your statement "...if it takes laws to do it...then so be it." 
You're using the ends (no more spam) to justify the means (make more laws). 
Not a non sequitor; my comment absolutely follows what you said. 

> 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.

Should laws be passed to prevent Joe's wife from calling you?

> 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.

If you put your phone device on the network, even if by means of wires you 
bought and installed on your phone, then it is *you* making your equipment 
available to anybody who can dial your number. You don't have the right to 
stop someone *else* from using the service that *they* are paying for. You 
do have the consumer's right to demand that the telco provide a service for 
blocking numbers; you could ask for a white list (only numbers you 
specifically indicate can call you) or a black list (numbers are identified 
that can *not* call you) service. Then *you* could pay for that service 
*and* have a means of pushing for quality in that service (using your 
wallet) rather than asking government to do it (and using *my* wallet). 

BTW, you do realize that your telemarketing calls are *not* going to stop, 
don't you? Canada is not bound by the bill and can call you. I've already 
had two calls this week from Ontario that were telemarketers. Got one from 
India as well. Guess what? The law's *worthless*. The calls will go 
overseas where the law is irrelevant. Additionally, any company you've 
dealt with and who has been given your phone number (credit card companies, 
banks, the restaurant that asks for your number when you make a to-go 
order, or any company for that matter that you give your number to) and 
their subsidiaries (even look at how many companies Sears owns, as an 
example?) CAN STILL CALL YOU EVEN IF THE LAW IS ENACTED. Now, tell me, 
what's going to change? [HINT: absolutely *nothing*...]

> 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.

And you made the decision when you hooked your equipment up to the telco's 
equipment. QED.

> I don't want them using my wires.

Don't connect them to the telco's network, then.

> 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.

Take it off of the network. You can't put your equipment on the network and 
then complain that someone else who has paid for their service connects to 
it, which is how the phone service works.

> 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.

Disconnect it then. If you put your phone on the wiring, and connect that 
wiring to the telco's keptel, then it is *you* who is dangling your bits 
for the rest of the world to use. 

> That is all clearly spelled out in the contracts that both
> they and I signed with the telco.  

Quote it for us, please. Where is it clearly spelled out exactly?

> Telco rules up to the demark, my
> rules past that very preciese, very simple, physical point.

Nobody's using your physical devices but you. 

-- 
Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce@myrealbox.com>
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"