"The thread on telemarketer calls contains one in which the text is unremarkable but the person hiding his identity signed it ""abner louima @no plungers please""
What a foul, rank, wretched, depraved turn of mind this poster has.
There were other fictitious names of posters here: that may yet be common; I don't find myself looking here very often...but, having read anonymous posting would be banished from our message board, I guess that was more fiction.
Richard"
A putrid anonymous post.
Sat, 03/29/2003 - 9:24pm
Sun, 03/30/2003 - 7:46am
#1
One out of eight ain't bad
You're right, Richard. The Abner post contains an analogy in such poor taste that it should be deleted.
But since the Webmaster hasn't done so, notice how capably the poster signed PC Cop puts the creep in his/her place. And how everyone else has appropriately ignored the remark, since it's not worthy of a sane person's attention.
Out of twelve posters on that thread, eight were anonymous, including me, the one who started it. Are we all equally depraved, because one of us is? Should I not have spoken up about how the roster was being used? (I wish to remain anonymous because I have no personal quarrel with the telemarketer.)
What is wrong with the others discussing how they deal with the problem of being telemarketed at home (including criticizing each other's methods)? Does reading this thread harm other club members?
I obviously have a vested interest in this matter, since I started the thread. But I don't see how anonymity is a problem here. I for one wouldn't have learned that telemarketing with the roster violated club rules. Before, I thought it was just annoying and ineffective. So if it happens again, I can tell the caller, in case they don't already know.
Sun, 03/30/2003 - 10:01am
#2
The expressed responses to telemarketers
"Well, as I'm asked to respond to the above post, I will.
Given the mild and sincere content, and the civility of your original note, I wouldn't care that you posted it anonymously but for the fact I am against anonymous posting and therefore put it forward as a general rule irrespective of content or expression.
Without intending to be argumentative, I do challenge your stated reason for posting your note anonymously. You state you posted anonymously because you have no personal quarrel with the telemarketer...but of course you do; that's precisely what set this in motion. And, obviously, had you signed your name to your post, that wouldn't have divulged the name of the telemarketer if your wish was to protect his or her identity.
If you thought the telemarketer would get pissed at you for expressing your dyspepsia at having the club roster used to subject you to a telemarketer call, you are saintly. YOU should care that this would displease him or her? YOU were the one effronted. And what was this person going to do if pissed at you? Not call you again? Uh, isn't that precisely what those who followed your post most wish from telemarketers?
Now let me expand my retort here to all those oh, so terribly clever (not to mention utterly gratuitously hostile) suggested responses to telemarketers. The telemarketers are doing a job. It's not a pleasant or remunerative one. They're simply trying to make a lawful living. And what all those oh, so clever people are doing in their responses to them is making themselves feel better by beating up powerless, defenseless persons.
Why can't those not welcoming telemarketer calls--after registering for ""Do not call,"" as suggested--simply say, ""I'm not interested. Thank you.""? That would take even less time than their suggested retorts.
Answer: Because that would take maturity, understanding, and even a bit of compassion, and it's more satisfying to bully a defenseless, powerless person. After all, sundering a telemarketer provides every bit as much satisfaction to the ego as, say, invading Grenada.
Richard"
Sun, 03/30/2003 - 12:48pm
#3
Time out
You didn't answer any of my questions, which would have made this a dialogue. Instead, you speculate at length about my motives and about the mental shortcomings of everyone else who posted on the subject.
You don't want a dialogue, you want a boxing match.
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 7:09am
#4
"I answer ""Miffed's"" questions."
"""Miffed"" asserts I didn't answer any of his or her questions so I will do so here:
He or she asks: ""Are we all equally depraved, because one of us is?""
My answer: No.
He or she asks: ""Should I not have spoken up about how the roster was being used?""
My answer: No, you were perfectly right to do so.
He or she asks: ""What is wrong with the others discussing how they deal with the problem of being telemarketed at home (including criticizing each other's methods)?""
My answer: Absolutely nothing. I, myself, wrote of how I deal with telemarketers. In doing so, I criticized the needless coarseness of others' responses. (See my reply to Anthony Poole on this same matter elsewhere here.) I can't see what you set you off other than the fact I criticized others' needless coarseness, so I'll ask you a question by holding your own words up to you: ""What is wrong with [my] discussing how [others] deal with the problem of being telemarketed at home (including criticizing each other's methods)?""
He or she asks: ""Does reading this thread harm other club members?""
My answer: No.
He or she wrote: ""I don't see how anonymity is a problem here.""
My comment: Well, no... As I said at the outset of this back-and-forth, you've written with sincerity, mildness, and civility. But here's where the problem arises: IF one agrees that [some] anonymous posting should be barred [as I do], then that has to be a general rule. Otherwise you will have to empower someone or a council of people to rule on the acceptability (for invective, slander, etc.) of every anonymous note. I don't want to give that power and authority to anyone. Do you?
Two final sallies:
#1: I'm surprised you took such umbrage at my note. Nothing in it targeted you with any distemper attached to it.
#2: If you had signed your name, I could and would have written or spoken with you directly about all this.
Richard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 3:59am
#5
Utter hogwash
"Richard, contrary to your outrageous and utterly baseless suggestion that some of us are trying to bully defenceless telemarketers, I can say that I have tried on several occasions in New York and my native London to tell telemarketers ""I'm not interested, thank you"", only to have them continue their sales pitch and become more aggressive and offensive.
While I can accept that many of these people are doing poorly-paid jobs and times may be hard and jobs hard to come by, these people have been around when times have been good and they could almost certainly have got better jobs elsewhere. My inclination is to treat the method of telemarketing with the utter contempt that it deserves. And for those people that support what telemarketers do, I feel inclined to treat them the same way. I consider their phoning me at home an invasion of my privacy.
Please note that when I tell telemarketers to ""go away"", it should not be misread or taken that I actually use offensive langauage. I literally do say ""go away."" It is precisely the same thing I would say to a salesperson that came knocking at my front door.
Frankly, I would be delighted if telemarketing was outlawed."
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 10:21am
#6
My response to Anthony Poole
"First things first, Anthony: You're my kinda guy--up and at your keyboard, firing away at 4AM.
You assert I was outrageous and had no basis for saying some of the ways people boasted they dealt with telemarketers amounts to bullying.
Let's review together, shall we?
__________________________________
Anonymous, aka Smooth Riding Operator, wrote:
""Keep saying “WHAT” all the time and pretend you are hard of hearing. This will make them repeat all their Marketing “intro” line and eventually frustrate them.
“STUTTER” … That’s right “stutter” and speak really S-L-O-W. They usually hang up or pretend that they dialed a wrong number.
- And my favorite… I pretend to be a Chinese Order Taker w/ a very heavy Mandarin/Cantonese accent. “So ! one large fly lice!…2 egg woll!….1 large waton sup!….and 2 peksi!….and your adesss?!!!”
_______________________________________________________
""Art"" wrote:
""Nah, just say, ""Hold on a second, I have something on the stove."" Then put the phone down and don't come back for about 10 minutes!""
________________________________________________________
You, yourself, wrote:
""I usually find the quickest way to despatch unwanted callers is to shout ""go away"" down the phone and hang up immediately.""
________________________________________________________
Let me repeat my super-fast, invariably successful, inoffensive, and non-belligerant way to deal with unwanted telemarketers (and, yes, I concur, they all are unwanted). Following the telemarketer's first sentence, say these words: ""I'm not interested. Thank you."" Perhaps add,""I'm hanging up now."" And do it. No banging up the phone, no shouting, no mocking...unless, as I suggested, you take pleasure in bullying.
Your note does say you tell them, ""'I'm not interested, thank you,' only to have them continue their sales pitch and become more aggressibe and offensive.""
Question, Anthony: Why in the hell are you continuing to hold the phone and listen to them beyond your politely saying, ""I'm not interested. Thank you"" instead of simply and civilly hanging up?
One last note: you wrote, ""My inclination is to treat [telemarketers with] utter contempt...(a)nd for those people that support what telemarketers do, I feel inclined to treat them the same way.""
Wow! If you regard me with contempt for not acting abrasively towards telemarketers, I can only imagine the utter contempt you would have for my inability to climb hills. (At least that is fully deserved by me.)
And, as you regard me with contempt for acting civilly towards telemarketers, I can't even imagine the contempt you must feel for businessmen such as presided over Tyco, Global Crossing, Enron, Sotheby's...god, I'd use up all our bandwidth if I continued to enumerate them, right up to the parachute packers for Jack Welch and our recently installed Sec. of Treasury. Or do you reserve your contempt for small people because it is so much easier to rage at them...and me?
Richard"
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 12:45pm
#7
My response to Richard
Yes, I do start work at 4am, although this morning I overslept, and I think the time registered on people's responses to the message board is an hour and a half or so slow as I didn't get to my computer until about 5:30.
I suggest you get on your bike and turn a few pedals in anger on Wallnut Hill and do some hill repeats, otherwise I might well feel justified in treating your response to me with the contempt that it deserves. I am not going to be drawn into any future debate on this subject, I have far better things to do. Good afternoon!
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 10:09pm
#8
Message deleted by writer.
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 7:41am
#9
value of requiring identy of poster
Requiring that posters be identified would not eliminate a valid issue. Certainly, go ahead and make your point. Others should comment on it as well. It has always been my feeling that requiring identification would not eliminate valid issues on people's minds. Requiring identification would, I sincerely believe, eliminate the derogatory and offensive postings such as the one that has stirred up this emotion. Anonymous postings seem to give license to those who discredit all the rest of us. So, make your point, be proud of it, take credit, and don't be afraid to identify yourself. Requiring identification, I believe, would raise the quality of our message board and virtually eliminate the offensive content on this - our - message board. With all my heart I believe the benefits of requiring identification are far and away greater than what we would lose by not permitting anonymous postings.
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 11:13am
#10
Identity of Posters
"""Requiring identification, I believe, would raise the quality of our message board and virtually eliminate the offensive content on this - our - message board.""
>raise the quality of our message board? –Don’t know, it has gotten a lot better already, is anybody still scared to post?
>virtually eliminate the offensive content? –Maybe not, some people have no shame and can be openly offensive and abusive. We would still need a moderator.
Requiring identification limits its use? –Perhaps, would someone be as likely to tend to another's cramp or lend a spare tube if they lost a heated argument to the person in need?
The moderator should have deleted the AL post earlier (as the intentions were pretty clear); he has deleted less offensive post before. Although I personally found the Smooth Operator post to be borderline offensive, I was glad he left it in because it’s a good example of how not to use this MB. I responded to the AL post as ‘PC Cop’ after it was decided that it was going to be left on.
Written words are a subjective yet powerful way of communication. I sometimes post anonymously because when people disagree, it often turns heated and personal. It’s also a good way to keep my own ego in check (not taking insult or praise to heart).
Like most users of this MB, I don’t come here often? (too busy shopping online at work.) I kind of like the way its been working out thanks to Peter and Tim. So a stinky one slipped through the net, it’s nothing like it used to be.
Charles Lam
B-SIG Leader
Part-time PC Cop
Chinese American
Yogi On Bike
"
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 1:00pm
#11
Give it a rest. Go ride your bike. Some of you have a lot of time in your hands, apparently. Hey, Charles, you are still a B rider? Is funny how most of you haven't changed or improved.
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 1:10pm
#12
I'll race you, Mano a Pinhead
>Charles, you are still a B rider? Is funny how most of you haven't changed or improved.
Yes, I’m a B rider, sometimes C rider. It's actually sad and pathetic that you make assumptions about others because of a label.
Thanks for your insightful contribution to the discussion.
Regards,
Chuck
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 2:40pm
#13
ORBEA?
<<<>>>
Date: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:00:33 PM
Author: I got an Orbea (Orbea@orbea.com)
24.189.27.90 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
Give it a rest. Go ride your bike. Some of you have a lot of time in your hands, apparently. Hey, Charles, you are still a B rider? Is funny how most of you haven't changed or improved.
<<<>>>
Now, I do not mind anon. posts, but here's a post by a coward - he/she's attacking some one for no reason (trolling), hiding behind a nom de merde, and wants us to think he/she rides an Orbea. And he/she throws in that faint echo of an Asian accent reminiscent of V.C. - as if that is current. A racist, cowardly troll, haha!
Mr. Lam, ignore this pubescent folly. When his/her gonads begin to flourish and the training wheels come off the bike, he may actually do a lap in Central Park.
Orbea ... haha!
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 3:03pm
#14
"Yes, John. I love my Orbea. The diamond shape top and down tubes are sexy. The frame allows me to fly up both ""hills"" in Central Park and Prospect Park at 20 mph without much problems. 25 mph on flats is a piece of cake. Bye, bye."
Mon, 03/31/2003 - 3:24pm
#15
Here we go again with bulletin board bragging. Why waste your efforts when there are plenty of opportunities to prove your mettle? Show up for next Saturday's A-Classic STS, when every hill in Harriman and Bear Mountain parks will be climbed. Be the KoM and get your picture on the following week's home page.
