Re: Am I being 'watched'?!

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by nemo, Aug 16, 2003.

  1. nemo

    nemo Guest

    NoOne <> wrote in message
    news:dnc%a.531$...
    > Here's a weird one! I have DialUp connection and have long (very long)
    > sessions on the internet mainly due to downloading huge files like videos
    > from Kazaa etc., so I could be online for literally days (and nights) at a
    > time. I only have a single phone connection so when I'm online no-one can
    > phone me (like the mother-in-law)....;)
    > But....'every time I disconnect from the internet, the phone rings right
    > away....'and I DO mean right away! Within a second!
    > It never fails! It's always some assole from a computer magazine or

    similar
    > wanting to know if I would like to subscribe to their mag, or fill in a
    > 'survey' over the phone! Now, I'm all for believing in co-incedence when
    > something like this happens once or twice, but when it happens every time

    I
    > disconnect over a period of a month....'I really have to ask myself just
    > what the hell is going on.
    > I'm convinced that they 'know' when I'm offline and my phone is not

    engaged.
    > Does anyone know how they do this, and more to the point, is it illegal?!
    > And...'is there anything I can do about it?
    > Geo.
    >


    They've probably got automatic equipment that keeps dialling busy numbers
    repeatedly and puts them through to an operator the instant they become
    free. It's unlikely they're monitoring the use of your computer. Leave the
    phone off the hook for a time when you shut down the PC and I think you'll
    find they'll ring as soon as you put the receiver back.

    I loathe salesmen of any description . . . hence:

    Tell the caller very firmly to cut the sales spiel right there and demand
    the full name of the company and the address of their Registered Office or
    US equivalent. You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    They're like horrible little robots. You'll get "Yes but . . ." and then
    they'll start their spiel again unless you're very firm.

    When the guy finally says "Why?" tell 'im its because you charge £50 or $50
    or so for each time anyone uses your telephone for their own commercial
    purposes and you want to know where to send the invoice and the County Court
    Summons if they don't cough up.

    Its all perfectly legal and it worked wonders when I used it once. I get
    nothing now.

    I believe the guy in the US who first thought of the idea actually did get
    some money out of the sods who were calling him.

    Another good idea - not so legal but more fun - is to knock up an oscillator
    and amplifier that will put a horrifically deafening noise on the line at
    the touch of a button! I used this when I started getting silent calls a few
    years ago. I said "Hello. Sorry - I can't hear you," repeatedly while moving
    the receiver slowly away from my mouth so that my words became quieter. This
    makes the person at the other end clasp the receiver to their ear more
    firmly. Then I let them have it!! Those calls stopped too!

    The operators calling you will be wearing headsets and will have to reach
    for a key to cut the call off. That leaves plenty of time for serious
    hearing damage!

    Using a recording of fingernails being scraped down a blackboard might be an
    idea - if you can stand it yourself that is!

    Ain't I a horrible little sadist?!! :eek:(

    Nemo
     
    nemo, Aug 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nemo

    NoOne Guest

    "nemo" <> wrote in message
    news:K7x%a.209463$B%...
    >
    > NoOne <> wrote in message
    > news:dnc%a.531$...
    > > Here's a weird one! I have DialUp connection and have long (very long)
    > > sessions on the internet mainly due to downloading huge files like

    videos
    > > from Kazaa etc., so I could be online for literally days (and nights) at

    a
    > > time. I only have a single phone connection so when I'm online no-one

    can
    > > phone me (like the mother-in-law)....;)
    > > But....'every time I disconnect from the internet, the phone rings right
    > > away....'and I DO mean right away! Within a second!
    > > It never fails! It's always some assole from a computer magazine or

    > similar
    > > wanting to know if I would like to subscribe to their mag, or fill in a
    > > 'survey' over the phone! Now, I'm all for believing in co-incedence when
    > > something like this happens once or twice, but when it happens every

    time
    > I
    > > disconnect over a period of a month....'I really have to ask myself just
    > > what the hell is going on.
    > > I'm convinced that they 'know' when I'm offline and my phone is not

    > engaged.
    > > Does anyone know how they do this, and more to the point, is it

    illegal?!
    > > And...'is there anything I can do about it?
    > > Geo.
    > >

    >
    > They've probably got automatic equipment that keeps dialling busy numbers
    > repeatedly and puts them through to an operator the instant they become
    > free. It's unlikely they're monitoring the use of your computer. Leave the
    > phone off the hook for a time when you shut down the PC and I think you'll
    > find they'll ring as soon as you put the receiver back.
    >
    > I loathe salesmen of any description . . . hence:
    >
    > Tell the caller very firmly to cut the sales spiel right there and demand
    > the full name of the company and the address of their Registered Office or
    > US equivalent. You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    > They're like horrible little robots. You'll get "Yes but . . ." and then
    > they'll start their spiel again unless you're very firm.
    >
    > When the guy finally says "Why?" tell 'im its because you charge £50 or

    $50
    > or so for each time anyone uses your telephone for their own commercial
    > purposes and you want to know where to send the invoice and the County

    Court
    > Summons if they don't cough up.
    >
    > Its all perfectly legal and it worked wonders when I used it once. I get
    > nothing now.
    >
    > I believe the guy in the US who first thought of the idea actually did get
    > some money out of the sods who were calling him.
    >
    > Another good idea - not so legal but more fun - is to knock up an

    oscillator
    > and amplifier that will put a horrifically deafening noise on the line at
    > the touch of a button! I used this when I started getting silent calls a

    few
    > years ago. I said "Hello. Sorry - I can't hear you," repeatedly while

    moving
    > the receiver slowly away from my mouth so that my words became quieter.

    This
    > makes the person at the other end clasp the receiver to their ear more
    > firmly. Then I let them have it!! Those calls stopped too!
    >
    > The operators calling you will be wearing headsets and will have to reach
    > for a key to cut the call off. That leaves plenty of time for serious
    > hearing damage!
    >
    > Using a recording of fingernails being scraped down a blackboard might be

    an
    > idea - if you can stand it yourself that is!
    >
    > Ain't I a horrible little sadist?!! :eek:(
    >
    > Nemo
    >
    >

    Man, you have a wicked sense of humour there! But I like it!! Thanks for the
    tips....'I'm sure I'll use them too! ;)
    Geo.
     
    NoOne, Aug 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    ..
    >On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
    >> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    >> .
    >>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    >>>They're like horrible little robots

    >>
    >> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think anyone
    >> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,.... Do you
    >> think it is fun?

    >
    >Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
    >spammers.


    As long sa youmean the companies and not the people people on the
    phones, I agree except I think telemarketing in below spamming.

    But if you are reffering to the workers, you are a stupid jerk and I can
    only hope some downfall drives you to doing it.

    The U.S. National Do Not Call list will be a great help in
    >putting them in their place.
    >
    >[snippo]
     
    Bill Schowengerdt, Aug 17, 2003
    #3
  4. nemo

    Jimchip Guest

    On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:12:10 -0700, Auric__ wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, Jimchip
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
    >>> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    >>> .
    >>>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    >>>>They're like horrible little robots
    >>>
    >>> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think anyone
    >>> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,.... Do you
    >>> think it is fun?

    >>
    >>Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
    >>spammers. The U.S. National Do Not Call list will be a great help in
    >>putting them in their place.

    >
    > Yes, but do you seriously expect a telemarketing giant to stop calling
    > just because you're on a list? They'll just find new ways to make
    > unidentifiable, untraceable calls.


    It won't be perfect but yes, if it's "a telemarketing giant" or not.
    Phone is a highly enforceable medium in the U.S.

    --
    Symptom: Drinking fails to give taste and satisfaction,
    beer is unusually pale and clear.

    Diagnosis: Glass empty.
     
    Jimchip, Aug 17, 2003
    #4
  5. nemo

    Jimchip Guest

    On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:58:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    > the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    > .
    >>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
    >>> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    >>> .
    >>>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    >>>>They're like horrible little robots
    >>>
    >>> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think anyone
    >>> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,.... Do you
    >>> think it is fun?

    >>
    >>Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
    >>spammers.

    >
    > As long sa youmean the companies and not the people people on the
    > phones, I agree except I think telemarketing in below spamming.


    The "people people on the phones" [sic] are "the companies".

    >
    > But if you are reffering to the workers, you are a stupid jerk and I can
    > only hope some downfall drives you to doing it.


    There are other options for "the workers" and you're obviously one of
    them (at least formerly), scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
    and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.

    >
    > The U.S. National Do Not Call list will be a great help in
    >>putting them in their place.
    >>
    >>[snippo]


    --
    "The Devil made me do it"
     
    Jimchip, Aug 17, 2003
    #5
  6. nemo

    Jimchip Guest

    On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:24:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:37:55 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    > the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    > .
    >>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:58:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    >>> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    >>> .
    >>>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
    >>>>> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    >>>>> .
    >>>>>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    >>>>>>They're like horrible little robots
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think anyone
    >>>>> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,.... Do you
    >>>>> think it is fun?
    >>>>
    >>>>Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
    >>>>spammers.
    >>>
    >>> As long sa youmean the companies and not the people on the
    >>> phones, I agree except I think telemarketing in below spamming.

    >>
    >>The "people on the ohones are "the companies".


    You post-edited what I wrote...typical asshole behavior.

    > Wrong. Not only are they not the companies, but also they are not in a
    > position to have any influence over the companies.


    I see, if the workers weren't there, the "companies" still would be
    cranking out millions of intrusive calls per day.

    >>> But if you are reffering to the workers, you are a stupid jerk and I can
    >>> only hope some downfall drives you to doing it.

    >>
    >>There are other options for "the workers"

    >
    > Hundreds of thousands of call center workers would be grateful for your
    > wisdom. Please share it.


    Hopefully, they'll be unemployed come October.

    >>and you're obviously one of
    >>them (at least formerly),

    >
    > Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have never
    > worked for a company that does outbound.
    >
    > However, before my illness I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
    > Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.


    Verizon! Spambags.
    http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Verizon&as_ugroup=news.admin.net-abuse.email
    You sounded like a spammer.

    > Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
    > other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on welfare.


    BooHoo, Verizon as a social agency, providing "provide support for their
    children"...what a crock.

    > This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled employers in
    > this area, and at their wages expensive child care makes working barely
    > practical. Also a factor is the fact that there are simply not enough
    > jobs available even at the lower pay.
    >
    >>scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
    >>and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.

    >
    > Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack support,
    > I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if you have one
    > that makes sense.
    >
    > BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call list and
    > that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still get are those
    > allowed by the law from certain organizations such as the police.
    >
    > Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not care if
    > they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.


    Now, that's rational [not].

    You're on too many drugs, Bill. Didn't you morph out of my killfile,
    too? I'll have to look that up.

    --
    Fuckwit
     
    Jimchip, Aug 17, 2003
    #6
  7. "Jimchip" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Now, that's rational [not].
    >
    > You're on too many drugs, Bill. Didn't you morph out of my killfile,
    > too? I'll have to look that up.


    On an interesting side note, 2 days ago, Bill's messages quit appearing
    here. Rumor has it, the news admin wanders thru several dozen of the groups,
    and deletes locally anything he considers spam. <G>

    NOI
     
    thund3rstruck_n0i, Aug 17, 2003
    #7
  8. On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:45:18 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    ..
    >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:24:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:37:55 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    >> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    >> .
    >>>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:58:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    >>>> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    >>>> .
    >>>>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
    >>>>>> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    >>>>>> .
    >>>>>>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    >>>>>>>They're like horrible little robots
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think anyone
    >>>>>> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,.... Do you
    >>>>>> think it is fun?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
    >>>>>spammers.
    >>>>
    >>>> As long sa you mean the companies and not the people on the
    >>>> phones, I agree except I think telemarketing in below spamming.
    >>>
    >>>The "people on the phones are "the companies".

    >
    >You post-edited what I wrote...typical asshole behavior.


    Little did I know I was breaking any guidelines. by making things more
    readable.

    >> Wrong. Not only are they not the companies, but also they are not in a
    >> position to have any influence over the companies.

    >
    >I see, if the workers weren't there, the "companies" still would be
    >cranking out millions of intrusive calls per day.


    Probably not since the companies depend on the fact that workers have
    little choice but to work for them. Have you ever noticed the locations
    the companies chose to build new call centers? Do you think it might have
    something to do with a desperate workforce?

    >>>> But if you are reffering to the workers, you are a stupid jerk and I can
    >>>> only hope some downfall drives you to doing it.
    >>>
    >>>There are other options for "the workers"

    >>
    >> Hundreds of thousands of call center workers would be grateful for your
    >> wisdom. Please share it.

    >
    >Hopefully, they'll be unemployed come October.


    I doubt if the National list will seriously impact the business, but if
    it does, fine. it is unfortunate that some people will be put out of
    work, but at least people who are bothered enough to take some meaningful
    action to reduce unwanted calls, will not be abusing so many call center
    workers.

    OTOH.. You can still be a jerk when you call some customer service
    worker. No doubt it will help you to feel superior.

    >>>and you're obviously one of
    >>>them (at least formerly),

    >>
    >> Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have never
    >> worked for a company that does outbound.
    >>
    >> However, before my illness I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
    >> Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.

    >
    >Verizon! Spambags.
    >http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Verizon&as_ugroup=news.admin.net-abuse.email
    >You sounded like a spammer.


    Hey dipshit., Can you not read? Or is it simply that you do not realize
    that Verizon Wireless is a different company from Verizon. And... I do
    not recall ever receiving spam from either company. Have you?

    >> Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
    >> other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on welfare.

    >
    >BooHoo, Verizon as a social agency, providing "provide support for their
    >children"...what a crock.


    They are in no way a social agency. They are an employer who exchanges
    real money for real work. Social agencies are what many of their
    employees would depend on if they could not find other employment.

    >> This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled employers in
    >> this area, and at their wages expensive child care makes working barely
    >> practical. Also a factor is the fact that there are simply not enough
    >> jobs available even at the lower pay.
    >>
    >>>scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
    >>>and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.

    >>
    >> Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack support,
    >> I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if you have one
    >> that makes sense.
    >>
    >> BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call list and
    >> that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still get are those
    >> allowed by the law from certain organizations such as the police.
    >>
    >> Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not care if
    >> they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.

    >
    >Now, that's rational [not].


    Oh really? Why not

    >You're on too many drugs, Bill. Didn't you morph out of my killfile,
    >too? I'll have to look that up.


    What is the matter? Do you usually support yourself by running away?

    Ya know..... So far you have provided no rational support for your
    positions. Unless you now do so, I will have little choice other than to
    assume you are a gutless bag of ignorant hot air. Or simply stupid

    So far all I have heard from you are ridiculous sound bites that have
    obviously been programmed into you. Are you capable of original thought?.
     
    Bill Schowengerdt, Aug 17, 2003
    #8
  9. nemo

    nemo Guest

    NoOne <> wrote in message
    news:Mrz%a.819$...
    >
    > "nemo" <> wrote in message
    > news:K7x%a.209463$B%...
    > >
    > > NoOne <> wrote in message
    > > news:dnc%a.531$...
    > > > Here's a weird one! I have DialUp connection and have long (very long)
    > > > sessions on the internet mainly due to downloading huge files like

    > videos
    > > > from Kazaa etc., so I could be online for literally days (and nights)

    at
    > a
    > > > time. I only have a single phone connection so when I'm online no-one

    > can
    > > > phone me (like the mother-in-law)....;)
    > > > But....'every time I disconnect from the internet, the phone rings

    right
    > > > away....'and I DO mean right away! Within a second!
    > > > It never fails! It's always some assole from a computer magazine or

    > > similar
    > > > wanting to know if I would like to subscribe to their mag, or fill in

    a
    > > > 'survey' over the phone! Now, I'm all for believing in co-incedence

    when
    > > > something like this happens once or twice, but when it happens every

    > time
    > > I
    > > > disconnect over a period of a month....'I really have to ask myself

    just
    > > > what the hell is going on.
    > > > I'm convinced that they 'know' when I'm offline and my phone is not

    > > engaged.
    > > > Does anyone know how they do this, and more to the point, is it

    > illegal?!
    > > > And...'is there anything I can do about it?
    > > > Geo.
    > > >

    > >
    > > They've probably got automatic equipment that keeps dialling busy

    numbers
    > > repeatedly and puts them through to an operator the instant they become
    > > free. It's unlikely they're monitoring the use of your computer. Leave

    the
    > > phone off the hook for a time when you shut down the PC and I think

    you'll
    > > find they'll ring as soon as you put the receiver back.
    > >
    > > I loathe salesmen of any description . . . hence:
    > >
    > > Tell the caller very firmly to cut the sales spiel right there and

    demand
    > > the full name of the company and the address of their Registered Office

    or
    > > US equivalent. You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    > > They're like horrible little robots. You'll get "Yes but . . ." and then
    > > they'll start their spiel again unless you're very firm.
    > >
    > > When the guy finally says "Why?" tell 'im its because you charge £50 or

    > $50
    > > or so for each time anyone uses your telephone for their own commercial
    > > purposes and you want to know where to send the invoice and the County

    > Court
    > > Summons if they don't cough up.
    > >
    > > Its all perfectly legal and it worked wonders when I used it once. I get
    > > nothing now.
    > >
    > > I believe the guy in the US who first thought of the idea actually did

    get
    > > some money out of the sods who were calling him.
    > >
    > > Another good idea - not so legal but more fun - is to knock up an

    > oscillator
    > > and amplifier that will put a horrifically deafening noise on the line

    at
    > > the touch of a button! I used this when I started getting silent calls a

    > few
    > > years ago. I said "Hello. Sorry - I can't hear you," repeatedly while

    > moving
    > > the receiver slowly away from my mouth so that my words became quieter.

    > This
    > > makes the person at the other end clasp the receiver to their ear more
    > > firmly. Then I let them have it!! Those calls stopped too!
    > >
    > > The operators calling you will be wearing headsets and will have to

    reach
    > > for a key to cut the call off. That leaves plenty of time for serious
    > > hearing damage!
    > >
    > > Using a recording of fingernails being scraped down a blackboard might

    be
    > an
    > > idea - if you can stand it yourself that is!
    > >
    > > Ain't I a horrible little sadist?!! :eek:(
    > >
    > > Nemo
    > >
    > >

    > Man, you have a wicked sense of humour there! But I like it!! Thanks for

    the
    > tips....'I'm sure I'll use them too! ;)
    > Geo.
    >

    Good luck!!
     
    nemo, Aug 17, 2003
    #9
  10. On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:56:28 +0100, While I was using pressure to stop
    the bleeding, °Mike° <> posted:
    ..
    >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:51:37 -0400, in
    > <3f3fb2a1$0$13099$>
    > thund3rstruck_n0i scrawled:
    >
    >>
    >>"Jimchip" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Now, that's rational [not].
    >>>
    >>> You're on too many drugs, Bill. Didn't you morph out of my killfile,
    >>> too? I'll have to look that up.

    >>
    >> On an interesting side note, 2 days ago, Bill's messages quit appearing
    >>here. Rumor has it, the news admin wanders thru several dozen of the groups,
    >>and deletes locally anything he considers spam. <G>
    >>
    >> NOI

    >
    >That's interesting, because I don't see Bill's posts either; only Jimchip's
    >replies to him.


    Hmmm I see my own. on this server as well as freetera's. However, just
    to see what happens, I think I will send this one under a different name.
     
    Plinque Schowengerdt, Aug 17, 2003
    #10
  11. On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:56:28 +0100, While I was using pressure to stop
    the bleeding, °Mike° <> posted:
    ..
    >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:51:37 -0400, in
    > <3f3fb2a1$0$13099$>
    > thund3rstruck_n0i scrawled:
    >
    >>
    >>"Jimchip" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Now, that's rational [not].
    >>>
    >>> You're on too many drugs, Bill. Didn't you morph out of my killfile,
    >>> too? I'll have to look that up.

    >>
    >> On an interesting side note, 2 days ago, Bill's messages quit appearing
    >>here. Rumor has it, the news admin wanders thru several dozen of the groups,
    >>and deletes locally anything he considers spam. <G>
    >>
    >> NOI

    >
    >That's interesting, because I don't see Bill's posts either; only Jimchip's
    >replies to him.


    Mike,

    If there is any truth to what was said above and since I am certainly no
    spammer, how would I address such a problem?
     
    Plinque Schowengerdt, Aug 17, 2003
    #11
  12. nemo

    Jimchip Guest

    On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:56:28 +0100, °Mike° wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:51:37 -0400, in
    > <3f3fb2a1$0$13099$>
    > thund3rstruck_n0i scrawled:
    >
    >>
    >>"Jimchip" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Now, that's rational [not].
    >>>
    >>> You're on too many drugs, Bill. Didn't you morph out of my killfile,
    >>> too? I'll have to look that up.

    >>
    >> On an interesting side note, 2 days ago, Bill's messages quit appearing
    >>here. Rumor has it, the news admin wanders thru several dozen of the groups,
    >>and deletes locally anything he considers spam. <G>
    >>
    >> NOI

    >
    > That's interesting, because I don't see Bill's posts either; only Jimchip's
    > replies to him.


    I looked him up...he was morphing so I gutted him by other headers
    besides his nym.

    --
    "If it morphs, it's a troll"
    IHBT
     
    Jimchip, Aug 17, 2003
    #12
  13. °Mike° Spilled my beer when they jumped on the table and proclaimed
    in <3f61b380.25869495@localhost>:
    >
    > That's interesting, because I don't see Bill's posts either; only
    > Jimchip's replies to him.
    >


    Even more interesting because you and I are not on the same NNTP
    server...

    Oh well. No biggie.

    NOI
     
    Thund3rstruck, Aug 17, 2003
    #13
  14. nemo

    nemo Guest

    Re: Am I being 'watched'?! REPLY TO TROLL!

    Bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
    > bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    > .
    > > You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    > >They're like horrible little robots


    Yeah!

    You are arguing for the sake of arguing. That makes you a troll! - or the
    director of one of the telemarketing firms, which makes you an even lower
    form of life!!

    You're saying that business can do no wrong and that individuals don't have
    the right to even complain, never mind defend themselves and you're using
    the well-worn false impression of poor little exploited workers only trying
    to make a crust to defend unpopular and corrupt business practices which
    cause huge offence and nuisance and should have been made totally illegal
    years ago.

    It's just the same as when someone protests about other unpopular practices
    such as vivisection or hunting for instance.

    Someone - usually a nasty little right-wing slag like Polly Toynbee - will
    pop up and say: what about all the poor little workers who will lose their
    jobs of these practices cease - when what their really trying to protect is
    the fortune that the companies carrying out animal testing work make while
    at the same time paying those same "poor little workers" a bloody
    pittance! - or in the case of hunting are defending the corrupt, sick,
    perverted and immoral thrill that their upper-class-twit friends get out of
    chasing small animals to exhaustion and then seeing them torn to bits.

    And these self-same pundits do not so much as bat an eyelid when thousands
    of workers are made redundant when companies have to downsize or close
    because of bad or corrupt management!

    You're slagging off the victim and defending the villain - a practice which
    is far too common these days and is an absolute blight upon society, and you
    are showing that you can't stand anyone who deals with a problem in an
    effective, ingenious and forthright way because you are terrified that this
    sort of thing might catch on.

    > In short... I am so weary of listening to shit-heads say things like
    > "They're like horrible little robots", when you don't have a clue as to
    > what is forcing those poor people into doing that very difficult and
    > demeaning job.


    So you're weary? Tough. What is so special about you that we should all
    worry that you are weary? Aren't the victims of telemarketing entitled to be
    weary and sick to the back teeth of having their privacy invaded by total
    and utter morons working for the worst kind of corrupt, money-grubbing
    companies - and fight back?

    After reading your utterly stupid tirade I'm damned sure that you are not,
    in fact, one of the downtrodden telemarketing operators - you're most likely
    either a looney or the boss of one of these disgusting companies (is there a
    difference?) trying to protect your investment - an investment supported by
    annoying and irritating the arses off and grossly invading the privacy of
    ordinary people. Why don't you get a decent job?

    This makes you not only a troll, but also a spammer, albeit via the
    telephone!

    And where, O where do arrogant bastards like you and your ilk get the idea
    that you can sell things to people by annoying them anyway???

    The last salesman I encountered obviously thought like this . He was selling
    banking services in Sainsbury's and after I told him I was happy with my
    present bank and would definitely not be changing he just carried on with
    his sales spiel and wouldn't get out of my way.

    He was horizontal a few seconds later, and *he* was a horrible BIG robot! I
    hope this makes my attitude to high-pressure selling of all kinds crystal
    clear!

    This, sunshine, is what is known as having bitten off far more than you can
    chew!

    Nemo
     
    nemo, Aug 17, 2003
    #14
  15. nemo

    nemo Guest

    Auric__ <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, Jimchip
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop

    the
    > >> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    > >> .
    > >>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    > >>>They're like horrible little robots
    > >>
    > >> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think anyone
    > >> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,.... Do

    you
    > >> think it is fun?

    > >
    > >Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
    > >spammers. The U.S. National Do Not Call list will be a great help in
    > >putting them in their place.

    >
    > Yes, but do you seriously expect a telemarketing giant to stop calling
    > just because you're on a list? They'll just find new ways to make
    > unidentifiable, untraceable calls.
    > --
    > auric "underscore" "underscore" "at" hotmail "dot" com



    Another case of someone trying to condition a victim into not standing up
    for himself. Who needs Big Brother these days?
     
    nemo, Aug 17, 2003
    #15
  16. nemo

    nemo Guest

    Bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:37:55 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    > the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    > .
    > >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:58:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    > >> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    > >> .
    > >>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    > >>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop

    the
    > >>>> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    > >>>> .
    > >>>>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    > >>>>>They're like horrible little robots
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think anyone
    > >>>> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,.... Do

    you
    > >>>> think it is fun?
    > >>>
    > >>>Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
    > >>>spammers.
    > >>
    > >> As long sa youmean the companies and not the people on the
    > >> phones, I agree except I think telemarketing in below spamming.

    > >
    > >The "people on the ohones are "the companies".

    >
    > Wrong. Not only are they not the companies, but also they are not in a
    > position to have any influence over the companies.
    >
    > >> But if you are reffering to the workers, you are a stupid jerk and I

    can
    > >> only hope some downfall drives you to doing it.

    > >
    > >There are other options for "the workers"

    >
    > Hundreds of thousands of call center workers would be grateful for your
    > wisdom. Please share it.
    >
    > >and you're obviously one of
    > >them (at least formerly),

    >
    > Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have never
    > worked for a company that does outbound.


    That makes your tirade even more illogical!
    >
    > However, before my illness . . .


    I assume this was somewhere between the ears



    .. . . . I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
    > Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.
    >
    > Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
    > other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on welfare.
    >
    > This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled employers in
    > this area, and at their wages expensive child care makes working barely
    > practical. Also a factor is the fact that there are simply not enough
    > jobs available even at the lower pay.


    So what? There are low paid and put-upon workers in all kinds of jobs.
    >
    > >scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
    > >and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.

    >
    > Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack support,
    > I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if you have one
    > that makes sense.
    >
    > BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call list and
    > that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still get are those
    > allowed by the law from certain organizations such as the police.
    >
    > Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not care if
    > they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.
    >

    Twit!
     
    nemo, Aug 17, 2003
    #16
  17. nemo

    nemo Guest

    Bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:45:18 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    > the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    > .
    > >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:24:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:37:55 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    > >> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    > >> .
    > >>>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:58:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    > >>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, While I was using pressure to

    stop
    > >>>> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    > >>>> .
    > >>>>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    > >>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to

    stop the
    > >>>>>> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    > >>>>>> .
    > >>>>>>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    > >>>>>>>They're like horrible little robots
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think

    anyone
    > >>>>>> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,....

    Do you
    > >>>>>> think it is fun?
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
    > >>>>>spammers.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> As long sa you mean the companies and not the people on the
    > >>>> phones, I agree except I think telemarketing in below spamming.
    > >>>
    > >>>The "people on the phones are "the companies".

    > >
    > >You post-edited what I wrote...typical asshole behavior.

    >
    > Little did I know I was breaking any guidelines. by making things more
    > readable.
    >
    > >> Wrong. Not only are they not the companies, but also they are not in a
    > >> position to have any influence over the companies.

    > >
    > >I see, if the workers weren't there, the "companies" still would be
    > >cranking out millions of intrusive calls per day.

    >
    > Probably not since the companies depend on the fact that workers have
    > little choice but to work for them. Have you ever noticed the locations
    > the companies chose to build new call centers? Do you think it might have
    > something to do with a desperate workforce?
    >
    > >>>> But if you are reffering to the workers, you are a stupid jerk and I

    can
    > >>>> only hope some downfall drives you to doing it.
    > >>>
    > >>>There are other options for "the workers"
    > >>
    > >> Hundreds of thousands of call center workers would be grateful for your
    > >> wisdom. Please share it.

    > >
    > >Hopefully, they'll be unemployed come October.

    >
    > I doubt if the National list will seriously impact the business, but if
    > it does, fine. it is unfortunate that some people will be put out of
    > work, but at least people who are bothered enough to take some meaningful
    > action to reduce unwanted calls, will not be abusing so many call center
    > workers.
    >
    > OTOH.. You can still be a jerk when you call some customer service
    > worker. No doubt it will help you to feel superior.
    >
    > >>>and you're obviously one of
    > >>>them (at least formerly),
    > >>
    > >> Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have

    never
    > >> worked for a company that does outbound.
    > >>
    > >> However, before my illness I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
    > >> Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.

    > >
    > >Verizon! Spambags.

    >
    >http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Verizon&as_ugroup=news.admin.net-abuse

    ..email
    > >You sounded like a spammer.

    >
    > Hey dipshit., Can you not read? Or is it simply that you do not realize
    > that Verizon Wireless is a different company from Verizon. And... I do
    > not recall ever receiving spam from either company. Have you?
    >
    > >> Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
    > >> other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on

    welfare.
    > >
    > >BooHoo, Verizon as a social agency, providing "provide support for their
    > >children"...what a crock.

    >
    > They are in no way a social agency. They are an employer who exchanges
    > real money for real work. Social agencies are what many of their
    > employees would depend on if they could not find other employment.
    >
    > >> This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled employers

    in
    > >> this area, and at their wages expensive child care makes working barely
    > >> practical. Also a factor is the fact that there are simply not enough
    > >> jobs available even at the lower pay.
    > >>
    > >>>scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
    > >>>and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.
    > >>
    > >> Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack

    support,
    > >> I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if you have one
    > >> that makes sense.
    > >>
    > >> BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call list

    and
    > >> that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still get are

    those
    > >> allowed by the law from certain organizations such as the police.
    > >>
    > >> Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not care

    if
    > >> they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.

    > >
    > >Now, that's rational [not].

    >
    > Oh really? Why not
    >
    > >You're on too many drugs, Bill. Didn't you morph out of my killfile,
    > >too? I'll have to look that up.

    >
    > What is the matter? Do you usually support yourself by running away?
    >
    > Ya know..... So far you have provided no rational support for your
    > positions. Unless you now do so, I will have little choice other than to
    > assume you are a gutless bag of ignorant hot air. Or simply stupid
    >
    > So far all I have heard from you are ridiculous sound bites that have
    > obviously been programmed into you. Are you capable of original thought?.


    Sorry. I thought that was precisely what your remarks were.

    Nemo

    (Independent Thinker.)
     
    nemo, Aug 17, 2003
    #17
  18. On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:43:26 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    ..
    >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:56:28 +0100, °Mike° wrote:
    >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:51:37 -0400, in
    >> <3f3fb2a1$0$13099$>
    >> thund3rstruck_n0i scrawled:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Jimchip" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> Now, that's rational [not].
    >>>>
    >>>> You're on too many drugs, Bill. Didn't you morph out of my killfile,
    >>>> too? I'll have to look that up.
    >>>
    >>> On an interesting side note, 2 days ago, Bill's messages quit appearing
    >>>here. Rumor has it, the news admin wanders thru several dozen of the groups,
    >>>and deletes locally anything he considers spam. <G>
    >>>
    >>> NOI

    >>
    >> That's interesting, because I don't see Bill's posts either; only Jimchip's
    >> replies to him.

    >
    >I looked him up...he was morphing so I gutted him by other headers
    >besides his nym.


    I was not morphing. However, I did make several posts from freetera which
    I have not posted from for a very long time.

    But, I soon noticed that the name, etc. were not current. and changed
    them to be consistent with this instance of Agent.

    BTW.. As I suppose that post should be taken to mean that he has
    killfilled me, and I understand that it is poor form to reply to someone
    who has you killfilled,

    But, I want to make the point for anyone else who may be following this
    thread, that Jinchip did not rationally support any of his crap. Instead
    of taking the challenge, he seems to have run away.
     
    Plinque Schowengerdt, Aug 17, 2003
    #18
  19. nemo

    °Mike° Guest

    On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:43:26 -0000, in
    <>
    Jimchip scrawled:

    >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:56:28 +0100, °Mike° wrote:
    >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:51:37 -0400, in
    >> <3f3fb2a1$0$13099$>
    >> thund3rstruck_n0i scrawled:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Jimchip" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> Now, that's rational [not].
    >>>>
    >>>> You're on too many drugs, Bill. Didn't you morph out of my killfile,
    >>>> too? I'll have to look that up.
    >>>
    >>> On an interesting side note, 2 days ago, Bill's messages quit appearing
    >>>here. Rumor has it, the news admin wanders thru several dozen of the groups,
    >>>and deletes locally anything he considers spam. <G>
    >>>
    >>> NOI

    >>
    >> That's interesting, because I don't see Bill's posts either; only Jimchip's
    >> replies to him.

    >
    >I looked him up...he was morphing so I gutted him by other headers
    >besides his nym.


    Funnily enough, he just morphed again - I did see this one - but I won't
    be seeing any more.
     
    °Mike°, Aug 17, 2003
    #19
  20. On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:13:51 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
    bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    ..
    >
    >Bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:45:18 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    >> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    >> .
    >> >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:24:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >> >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:37:55 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
    >> >> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    >> >> .
    >> >>>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:58:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >> >>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, While I was using pressure to

    >stop
    >> >>>> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
    >> >>>> .
    >> >>>>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
    >> >>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to

    >stop the
    >> >>>>>> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
    >> >>>>>> .
    >> >>>>>>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
    >> >>>>>>>They're like horrible little robots
    >> >>>>>>
    >> >>>>>> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think

    >anyone
    >> >>>>>> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,....

    >Do you
    >> >>>>>> think it is fun?
    >> >>>>>
    >> >>>>>Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
    >> >>>>>spammers.
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> As long sa you mean the companies and not the people on the
    >> >>>> phones, I agree except I think telemarketing in below spamming.
    >> >>>
    >> >>>The "people on the phones are "the companies".
    >> >
    >> >You post-edited what I wrote...typical asshole behavior.

    >>
    >> Little did I know I was breaking any guidelines. by making things more
    >> readable.
    >>
    >> >> Wrong. Not only are they not the companies, but also they are not in a
    >> >> position to have any influence over the companies.
    >> >
    >> >I see, if the workers weren't there, the "companies" still would be
    >> >cranking out millions of intrusive calls per day.

    >>
    >> Probably not since the companies depend on the fact that workers have
    >> little choice but to work for them. Have you ever noticed the locations
    >> the companies chose to build new call centers? Do you think it might have
    >> something to do with a desperate workforce?
    >>
    >> >>>> But if you are reffering to the workers, you are a stupid jerk and I

    >can
    >> >>>> only hope some downfall drives you to doing it.
    >> >>>
    >> >>>There are other options for "the workers"
    >> >>
    >> >> Hundreds of thousands of call center workers would be grateful for your
    >> >> wisdom. Please share it.
    >> >
    >> >Hopefully, they'll be unemployed come October.

    >>
    >> I doubt if the National list will seriously impact the business, but if
    >> it does, fine. it is unfortunate that some people will be put out of
    >> work, but at least people who are bothered enough to take some meaningful
    >> action to reduce unwanted calls, will not be abusing so many call center
    >> workers.
    >>
    >> OTOH.. You can still be a jerk when you call some customer service
    >> worker. No doubt it will help you to feel superior.
    >>
    >> >>>and you're obviously one of
    >> >>>them (at least formerly),
    >> >>
    >> >> Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have

    >never
    >> >> worked for a company that does outbound.
    >> >>
    >> >> However, before my illness I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
    >> >> Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.
    >> >
    >> >Verizon! Spambags.

    >>
    >>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Verizon&as_ugroup=news.admin.net-abuse

    >.email
    >> >You sounded like a spammer.

    >>
    >> Hey dipshit., Can you not read? Or is it simply that you do not realize
    >> that Verizon Wireless is a different company from Verizon. And... I do
    >> not recall ever receiving spam from either company. Have you?
    >>
    >> >> Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
    >> >> other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on

    >welfare.
    >> >
    >> >BooHoo, Verizon as a social agency, providing "provide support for their
    >> >children"...what a crock.

    >>
    >> They are in no way a social agency. They are an employer who exchanges
    >> real money for real work. Social agencies are what many of their
    >> employees would depend on if they could not find other employment.
    >>
    >> >> This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled employers

    >in
    >> >> this area, and at their wages expensive child care makes working barely
    >> >> practical. Also a factor is the fact that there are simply not enough
    >> >> jobs available even at the lower pay.
    >> >>
    >> >>>scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
    >> >>>and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.
    >> >>
    >> >> Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack

    >support,
    >> >> I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if you have one
    >> >> that makes sense.
    >> >>
    >> >> BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call list

    >and
    >> >> that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still get are

    >those
    >> >> allowed by the law from certain organizations such as the police.
    >> >>
    >> >> Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not care

    >if
    >> >> they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.
    >> >
    >> >Now, that's rational [not].

    >>
    >> Oh really? Why not
    >>
    >> >You're on too many drugs, Bill. Didn't you morph out of my killfile,
    >> >too? I'll have to look that up.

    >>
    >> What is the matter? Do you usually support yourself by running away?
    >>
    >> Ya know..... So far you have provided no rational support for your
    >> positions. Unless you now do so, I will have little choice other than to
    >> assume you are a gutless bag of ignorant hot air. Or simply stupid
    >>
    >> So far all I have heard from you are ridiculous sound bites that have
    >> obviously been programmed into you. Are you capable of original thought?.

    >
    >Sorry. I thought that was precisely what your remarks were.


    My positions? Sound bites not showing independent thought? Really? For
    example?

    As far as I can tell, there are very few people who have considered the
    plight of the people on the phones at telemarketer companies.

    Even less frequent are the number of people who have the balls to argue
    with the knee jerk positions similar to JimChip's
     
    Plinque Schowengerdt, Aug 17, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian H¹©

    Re: Am I being 'watched'?!

    Brian H¹©, Aug 15, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    440
    Brian H¹©
    Aug 15, 2003
  2. ilmc

    Re: Am I being 'watched'?!

    ilmc, Aug 15, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    475
  3. Solo

    Re: Am I being 'watched'?!

    Solo, Aug 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    424
  4. Dewman

    Re: Am I being 'watched'?!

    Dewman, Aug 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    455
    Dewman
    Aug 16, 2003
  5. Tracker

    Re: Am I being watched/hacked?

    Tracker, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,750
    Chuck
    Aug 8, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page