Results 16 to 30 of 58
- 09-26-2003, 05:42 AM #16Bob SmithGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
"boe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newslRcb.431999$Oz4.236150@rwcrnsc54...
> Thanks for posting their names. I bet if someone were to post their
phone
> numbers and e-mail addresses a lot of people would let them know if
they
> agreed with them.
<snipped>
If one wants to, they can get that information via
http://www.house.gov/
Bob
› See More: NEWS: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
- 09-26-2003, 06:54 AM #17Stuart FriedmanGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on First
Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix for
Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to cut
off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against organized
religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I HATE
telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that her
ruling will be upheld on appeal.
Stu
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
> > > >
> > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
> > >
> > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and even
> > better,
> > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with our
> > free
> > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
> >
> > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
> > http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
> >
> > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
> > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
> > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Chris
> > Cannon, R-Utah.
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> Wonder who was paying them.
>
>
- 09-26-2003, 11:03 AM #18Larry TurnerGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
LOL! Peter.
I actually have co-workers who TALK on their phones in the bathroom....
--
LARRY TURNER
"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In message <<[email protected]>> "Thomas T.
> > Veldhouse" <[email protected]> did ramble:
> >
> > >In which case, you had better not call them after 9PM (or is it 8PM) in
> > >their local time.
> >
> > Why not? I'll invest into a payphone call and offer to sell them a large
> > bucket of steaming dog****.
> >
> > --
> > If you've had half as much fun reading this as I've had writing it, I've
> had twice as much fun as you.
>
> I don't see any reason why people can't call them after 9PM, after all the
> people calling for donations to political people can call later. Don't you
> think it's interesting that free nights usually start at 9PM? Just a
> coincidence, or is it a conspiracy to interrupt us after we eat? I say all
> of us that wake up at 3 AM to go to the bathroom should put a cell phone
by
> the toilet and call them in the middle of the night (and as I get older, I
> wake up more often to go to the bathroom). Oh.. and don't forget to flush!
>
>
>
- 09-26-2003, 11:10 AM #19Peter PanGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste and
see if you change your mind!
"Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on
First
> Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix for
> Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
> political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
> discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to cut
> off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against
organized
> religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I HATE
> telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that her
> ruling will be upheld on appeal.
>
> Stu
>
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
> > > > >
> > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and even
> > > better,
> > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with our
> > > free
> > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
> > >
> > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
> > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
> > >
> > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
> > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
> > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Chris
> > > Cannon, R-Utah.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> >
> > Wonder who was paying them.
> >
> >
>
>
- 09-26-2003, 11:23 AM #20Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
"DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <<[email protected]>> "Thomas T.
> Veldhouse" <[email protected]> did ramble:
>
> >In which case, you had better not call them after 9PM (or is it 8PM) in
> >their local time.
>
> Why not? I'll invest into a payphone call and offer to sell them a large
> bucket of steaming dog****.
It is against the law to solicit via telephone after a certain time, which I
believe to be 8PM or 9PM.
Tom Veldhouse
- 09-26-2003, 11:25 AM #21Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
> CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
> number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
> calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste
and
> see if you change your mind!
>
Tell them it is illegal to spam a cellular phone or a fax machine and if
they call you again they will be fined. Immediately call Verizon and have
the minutes creditted back to you with a report of the call. Those calls
WILL stop. I have used this method and I know longer receive any calls like
that. When I buy anything, I always list my cell phone number in place of
my home phone.
Tom Veldhouse
- 09-26-2003, 11:46 AM #22Peter PanGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In message <<[email protected]>> "Thomas T.
> > Veldhouse" <[email protected]> did ramble:
> >
> > >In which case, you had better not call them after 9PM (or is it 8PM) in
> > >their local time.
> >
> > Why not? I'll invest into a payphone call and offer to sell them a large
> > bucket of steaming dog****.
>
>
> It is against the law to solicit via telephone after a certain time, which
I
> believe to be 8PM or 9PM.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>
So what's your point? Is it NOT illegal to call after a certain time and
just *****? In that case, can he call from a payphone at 3 AM and say (not
offer to sell You like **** so much, I'm gonna send you a free steaming
bucket of dog****? Isn't the keyword here solicit versus just call and
*****? Are there any laws against calling to complain at any time? Can we
call the judge and just ***** ?
- 09-26-2003, 12:05 PM #23JustinGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
> > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
> > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
> > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste
> and
> > see if you change your mind!
> >
>
> Tell them it is illegal to spam a cellular phone or a fax machine and if
> they call you again they will be fined. Immediately call Verizon and have
> the minutes creditted back to you with a report of the call. Those calls
> WILL stop. I have used this method and I know longer receive any calls
like
> that. When I buy anything, I always list my cell phone number in place of
> my home phone.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
I just cancelled my land line. Except for the morons who keep calling for
Caroline after I've told them that she's no longer the user of this phone
number, I don't get near as many on my cell phone. I still get some,
however.
>
- 09-26-2003, 12:38 PM #24Bob SmithGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
<snipped>
>
> I just cancelled my land line. Except for the morons who keep
calling for
> Caroline after I've told them that she's no longer the user of this
phone
> number, I don't get near as many on my cell phone. I still get
some,
> however.
What's really going to be a PITA is for those folks who transfer their
landline numbers to a wireless provider ... .
Bob
- 09-26-2003, 01:13 PM #25Peter PanGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
> > > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you
cellphone
> > > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for
incoming
> > > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they
waste
> > and
> > > see if you change your mind!
> > >
> >
> > Tell them it is illegal to spam a cellular phone or a fax machine and if
> > they call you again they will be fined. Immediately call Verizon and
have
> > the minutes creditted back to you with a report of the call. Those
calls
> > WILL stop. I have used this method and I know longer receive any calls
> like
> > that. When I buy anything, I always list my cell phone number in place
of
> > my home phone.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
>
>
> I just cancelled my land line. Except for the morons who keep calling for
> Caroline after I've told them that she's no longer the user of this phone
> number, I don't get near as many on my cell phone. I still get some,
> however.
> >
>
>
My favorite was just last week. My cell phone is based in florida, and I was
on a ship in Alaska going through the inland passage. My cell phone rang, I
answered it, and it was a telemarfketer for a local business back in FL
4000+ miles away!
- 09-26-2003, 09:19 PM #26Guest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
In article <[email protected]>,
Stuart Friedman wrote:
> I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
> protected.
The constitutional right of free speech is a protection from United
States government imposition only, not from individual US citizen or
other non-government group imposition. Also, reasonable time and
place restrictions can still be imposed by the government. Time
and place restrictions have been found to be constitutional by the
Supreme Court.
- Dan
- 09-26-2003, 09:21 PM #27Guest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:34:19 GMT, "Carl." <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Probably a lot of different payments, but never overlook the likelyhood of
>these 8 people just being dumbasses. Odds were good for at least 8
>dumbasses out of a few hundred falling for the "free speech" argument.
>
I don't have a problem with the free speach thing but they are
interfering in our lives with the constant phone calls. In Florida, it
costs $10 per number to get on the states no call list (and if the
telemarketer happens to be outside of Florida they don't even have to
look at it). Why should I have to pay to not be bothered (when it's
not enforced anyway). I was brought up that my freedom ended when it
adversely affected someone else. This may not be 100% true all the
time but it's a good measuring stick that's got me by this far.
- 09-26-2003, 10:08 PM #28Peter PanGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
Gee, then according to your freedom of speech crap, it's unconstitutional to
pass any laws about yelling FIRE in a crowded theater?
Remind me to get a VCR or DVD player so I never have to go to theatres
anymore.
Note that the text of Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
it protects speech, but NOT DIALING!, and says NOTHING about having to
listen to someone speaking, and says nothing about having to pay to listen
to some telemarketer spew his(or her) crap.
"Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I despise telemarketers, but the law says that commercial speech is
> protected. The First Amendment protects speech that many people hate.
> Popular speech rarely needs constitutional protection. If you look at the
> cases finding first amendment rights, you'll find that many of the people
> wrapping themselves up in the constitution are not particularly likeable.
>
> Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
> the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call
on
> a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.
>
>
> Stu
>
> "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Excuse me Telemarketer lover, I have been wireless for 2 years now and
> > CONSTANTLY get telemarketing calls on my cellphone. What's you cellphone
> > number? I'll be glad to forward them to you so YOU can pay for incoming
> > calls from salespeople. Pay a few bills for the connect time they waste
> and
> > see if you change your mind!
> >
> >
> > "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Doesn't matter, a Federal District Judge in Colorado tossed the law on
> > First
> > > Amendment grounds yesterday afternoon. This will be a much harder fix
> for
> > > Congress because the judge's problem with the law was that it exempt
> > > political and charitable fund raisers from the prohibition, thus
> > > discriminating against speech based on content. Congress will need to
> cut
> > > off their own political fundraising and be willing to vote against
> > organized
> > > religion to pass a new law which passes constitutional scrutiny. I
HATE
> > > telemarketers, but I think that the judge has a point and I fear that
> her
> > > ruling will be upheld on appeal.
> > >
> > > Stu
> > >
> > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > > Well that didnt take too long folks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THE HOUSE VOTED 412-8 after less than hour of debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone know who those 8 people that voted against it are, and
even
> > > > > better,
> > > > > > how about their home telephone numbers so we can call em with
our
> > > > > free
> > > > > > evening minutes and interrupt them when eating/sleeping etc?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask and ye shall receive ... from the following web article -
> > > > > http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D7TPJDJ81.html
> > > > >
> > > > > The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff
> > > > > Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted
> > > > > Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and
Chris
> > > > > Cannon, R-Utah.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wonder who was paying them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
- 09-27-2003, 04:28 AM #29Mark AllreadGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:34:58 GMT, Stuart Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cellphones are different because you pay for the incoming calls. Perhaps
> the trick would be to charge a fraction of a cent for each incoming call
> on
> a landline in exchange for the right to block telemarketers.
You get your landline service for free? I have to pay for mine. It's a
monthly
rate, but I'm paying for it. Every second the phone is unavailable because
a
telemarketer is tying up the line is a second the service I'm paying for is
unavailable to me. That is theft of service, as their calls are unwanted,
something I make quite clear each time one calls.
You're clearly confused. A right isn't something you can purchase. A right
isn't
something you have to pay to exercise. A right simply exists. Just as
commercials
have a right to pitch their wares, I have a right to not listen to them.
Both of
these are considered "free speech."
--
Mark
- 09-27-2003, 06:40 AM #30Stuart FriedmanGuest
Re: House Votes to Reinstate the "DO NOT CALL" Bill
First Amendment 101. The Government is permitted to pass content nuetral
limitations on free speech such as reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions. Where Government gets itself in trouble is that where it
targets a particular message. That is why a government can ban all signs
from city hall lawns, but if it permits private individuals to post certain
generally inoffensive messages there (e.g. Jewish stars, Christmas trees,
yellow ribbons, etc), it must also permit the more offensive messages to go
on those lawns, (e.g. swastikas, klan symbols, etc). Calling after 9pm is
a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. Limiting door-to-door
solicitors to certain time periods is content nuetral. Requirement permits
using content nuetral criteria is ok). The problems comes in when Government
targets certain messages. Maintaining a national do not call list is
content nuetral. It is the exceptions to the list that got the government
into trouble.
Stu
"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In message <<[email protected]>> "Thomas T.
> > > Veldhouse" <[email protected]> did ramble:
> > >
> > > >In which case, you had better not call them after 9PM (or is it 8PM)
in
> > > >their local time.
> > >
> > > Why not? I'll invest into a payphone call and offer to sell them a
large
> > > bucket of steaming dog****.
> >
> >
> > It is against the law to solicit via telephone after a certain time,
which
> I
> > believe to be 8PM or 9PM.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
> >
> >
>
> So what's your point? Is it NOT illegal to call after a certain time and
> just *****? In that case, can he call from a payphone at 3 AM and say (not
> offer to sell You like **** so much, I'm gonna send you a free steaming
> bucket of dog****? Isn't the keyword here solicit versus just call and
> *****? Are there any laws against calling to complain at any time? Can we
> call the judge and just ***** ?
>
>
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.nextel
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.verizon
Aws gpu
in Chit Chat