**TM ** Could I interest you in a free sample of Viagra?
Zebra (laughs) No, I have no need for such a product.
**TM ** Are you sure you don’t need it?
Zebra Well, a few months ago my wife left me and there is no woman in my life so biger, stronger, longer lasting boners are not necessary right now.
**TM ** Can I call you back?
Zebra NO! You can not call me back. I am on the state and national do not call list so you shouldn’t be calling me in the first place. Do not break the law again.
Dude, she (he?) totally wanted you! Your next response should have been:
Zebra: No, but you can deliver that free sample in person. ::
(She (he??) of course wouldn’t be able to see the wink over the phone, but it would put the right tone to your voice. You could also make finger-guns, too, if that would help.)
You seem to have confused child labour with telemarketing. The are quite different issues. There is nothing in this thread to indicate a connection between the two, and nothing to suggest that anyone posting in this thread against telemarketers are for child labour.
Wrong, I’m afraid. Plenty of telemarketing firms in the UK are moving their call centre bases to India or Singapore, because the saving in wages outweighs any additional call costs. If they could use child labour to save even more, don’t think they wouldn’t.
Firstly your last post does not suggest any reason why Muffin is wrong. You need to read more carefully.
Secondly, don’t tell me let me guess: you’re running the “A is not bad because B is worse” argument, right? The last resort of the desperate and illogical.
I don’t think that is analagous [uh… analygous? god, whatever! stupid spelling!] to the telemarketing situation. While I was rather desperate for employment at the time, I took telemarketing becase a) it paid well b) it was “easy” [sitting at a desk all day] and c) I had convinced myself that it “wasn’t that bad.” It was truly that horrible, but no one forced me to take that job over, say, flipping burgers or stocking at the grocery store or Wal-Mart. IMO, if one chooses a job because of it being easier and paying a couple of bucks more an hour, then that person isn’t truly desperate for work.
My motives were evident before taking that job – I knew how goddamn annoying telemarketing was before I ever did it. However, I justified it with “Well, someone’s going to do it, I might as well earn a decent paycheck.” I think it’s glaringly obvious how shitty that line of reasoning is, and how inexusable. Also, it wasn’t the people who screamed at me who made me quit. I really could not accept that bullying a kindly person on a limited income into giving to a fraudulent organization was an acceptable means of employment. Shit, why not just harass kids for milk money? Amounts to the same thing, really.
I thought it might be fun, more then I thought it might be easy. It was neither. No one forced me to take the job but I was working illegaly at the time, so beggars can’t be choosers (yes I know bad bad me …I was a young O.E er at the time. I now know better).
But once again, it isn’t an easy job! This thread should be able to tell anyone that. There are a lot of jobs that involve physical work but are far far easier and you meet nice people doing them…I went on to pick berries in Scotland and then pull many a pint in London. Both were much easier and much more fun.
I think what is most apparent about this thread is how shitty people get when they feel their “privacy” is interrupted and how people feel that there is no need for common politeness anymore.
I saw a doco the other day about road rage. The main premise was that road rage happens because people are isolated in their cars and don’t see another person just an inconvenience, so acting out was deemed as “ok” to them. When they took one of these road rage individuals onto the footpath he was able to politley smile at the grandma dwadling in front of him because she was a person. He freely admitted to swearing and cursing at those “dwadling” in cars when he was driving.
We don’t race at out to the letter box to snarle at junk mail deliverers. Nor do we ring the TV station snarling and drooling because ads are interrupting our viewing. Telemarketers are people yet not A person so we feel free to act in a way we wouldn’t to anyones face.
Yes, yes I know…BUT THEY CAME INTO MY HOME AND ANNOYED ME! Years ago so did door to door salesmen. Mrs housewife still remained polite though because he was face to face. Charities still collect door to door…would you consider swearingand cursing at them because they interrupted you? No! Well I bloody well hope not. Maybe telemarketers are just a safe place to direct “house rage”
You’re quite right. It doesn’t suggest it, it states it implicitly - every telemarketing firm that can afford to do so is going somewhere where the labour is even cheaper. That puts cold callers in the category of wage slaves, ill-recompensed for their work. What was it you said - “I know there’s a difference of scale, but the principle remains the same”?
The only reason telemarketing managers aren’t using child labour is because “Hello mithter, are you interethted in double glathing?” sounds stupid.
Before I signed up for the no-call list, I started telling people in a sorrowful voice that I was laid off and (sniffle) didn’t know what to do. Once or twice I asked them if they wanted to send me money. Remarkably, the calls dwindled fairly rapidly after I started that tactic - I wonder if there is some sort of database that records info like that?
You made some good points, but I can tell you from experience that it’s no different face to face. About 40 years ago when I was young and stupid, I tried door-to-door canvasing. Most people were at least pleasant, but there were those who would slam the door in my face, just say no, but with a voice and expression that more than demonstrated their pique, and in the case of men who answered, sometimes assume an aggressive, even threatening posture. I suspect most people today just politely say no to telemarketers and ask to be put on their “don’t call” list. I do. Usually. But even I will take off the gloves if they argue with me or get overly aggressive.
Do they? I haven’t seen anyone at my door in years, with the exception of Jehova’s Witnesses. To them I just say, “I don’t care to discuss religion with you” as I am firmly closing the door. I seem to be less tolerant of people pedaling religion than those hawking products.
I disagree. When was the last time you
[ul]
[li]Leapt out of the bath to read an email?[/li][li]Left your meal to get cold to read an email?[/li][li]Interrupted an important face-to-face conversation to read an email?[/li][li](Speaking personally) Dangerously hurried a wheelchair transfer to read an email?[/li][li]Left something cooking on the stove to read an email?[/li][li]Missed an eagerly-awaited call because you were reading an email?[/li][/ul]
I’m with those who consider welfare the more respectable option. Spammers are a nuisance, but telemarketers are among the most selfish and inconsiderate people on earth. No-one should need to sink that low when welfare is an option.
Well put, Shrinking Violet. (Although, I don’t do half of those for phone calls, either, but that’s neither here nor there.) Suffice to say, telemarketers are at least as big a nuisance as spammers.
Evil Death, when you’ve got a cite for twelve year old Pakistani children being chained to auto-dialers and forced to sell aluminum siding to homeowners in Ohio, come back and try to float that “poor oppressed thirdworld telemarketer” crap again, and maybe we’ll talk. Until then, you’re just making yourself look stupid.
: