Mr2001, although what you’re saying is, for the most part, relatively well-reasoned, I still wonder about your policy statement. For example, in response to msrobyn’s complaint,
You reply,
However, how would you have responded, were you the telemarketer in this situation? You answered that question previously,
This policy, I think, is what Dinsdale was referring to as “phone pranks I would expect of a teenager.” Now, I imagine that you feel justified in this policy, and I suppose characterizing it as a “prank” is uncalled-for, but can you see why it would look like harrassment to someone in msrobyn’s position?
In general, I would like my statement that I’m not interested to be taken at face value. If I’m repeatedly called back by a telemarketer, who demands to know why I’m not interested, I’d start getting peeved. I don’t owe you an explanation, whether it be that I never buy anything over the phone, or I need to keep the line open because my son has died, or I have no money, or whatever else it may be.
To add another thought to the debate: I tentatively agree with Mr2001’s databank proposal above; it seems like a reasonable compromise to have a central, mandatory “do not call” list with a nominal cost ($5.00 for 5 years) to the consumer. Certainly the cost is a lot less than, say, getting caller ID, and it’s a lot better system than anything currently. However, a better system would be one where the industry foots the bill. I don’t understand the contention that I should incur additional cost to avoid being hassled by someone who makes money doing the hassling.
