On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:33:27 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
wrote:

>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>news:k57is2poknkqlum6r6e9bmhpfmftlkhtf3@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:51:56 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>>>news:713is21mpobu205qmjl7hcb0rhghn8nn59@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:52:50 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Approximately 3 years ago I had a problem with what appeared to be
>>>>>deliberate harassment hang-up calls to my home (landline) phone number.
>>>>>
>>>>>The calls were found to be from Verizon, and were being made for
>>>>>telemarketing purposes. I received these calls even though I was, and
>>>>>still
>>>>>am, on the state telemarketing "do not call" list. I am a Verizon
>>>>>customer,
>>>
>>>> Yet, you posted this to a Verizon *Wireless* group.
>>>
>>>There is no land-line newsgroup on which to post it.
>>>If Verizon commits these harassive/abusive practices with landline
>>>customers, do you really believe they are not behaving similarly with ALL
>>>customers and the public in general? People should be warned.
>>
>> As a former VZW customer of 10+ years, I never had an issue with them
>> calling me for anything.
>>
>>>Why are you defending them?
>>
>> I'm not. You're just one of those types who will call anyone a
>> "SHILL" who finds holes in your argument. You ought to be thanking us
>> for educating you.
>
>WHAT holes have you found? There are none. I made no argument; I simply
>reported my experiences with Verizon here, and you saw fit to make it into
>an argument. I am fully justified in questioning your motives for doing so.

You claim harassment, yet make no mention of pursuing harassment
charges in state court. You are hell bent to go the FCC complaint
route, which obviously doesn't apply here because of the pre-existing
business relationship. As another poster put it in your last
embarrassment here, you just tilt at windmills.

>So again, as you didn't answer the first time, WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THEM?

I'm still waiting for you to point out an instance of "defending"
them. What's wrong, can't do it? Calling you on your stupidity does
not equate to defending anyone.

>>>>>so they may have been entitled to call me for business purposes. When
>>>>>contacted, Verizon told me that their computer makes the calls and then
>>>>>hangs up under certain circumstances, thus causing my answering machine
>>>>>to
>>>>>record no message. This was happening a few times a day, and clearly
>>>>>constituted HARASSMENT. I told them this, and that they should change
>>>>>their
>>>>>calling methods.
>>>
>>>> Just because you think it is harassment doesn't make it so. What
>>>> matters is your state's laws. Did you bother to research what
>>>> constitutes harassment in your state?
>>>
>>>Deliberate, repeated hangup calls are clearly annoying. Repeatedly
>>>annoying
>>>someone constitutes harassment. Wouldn't YOU think so if YOU received
>>>anonymous hangup calls?
>>
>> Again I say, it doesn't matter what you or I think. All that matters
>> is your state's laws.
>
>Fine. As I understand the relevant laws, repeated telemarketing calls that
>one considers harrassive, especially after being on record with the calling
>party as NOT WANTING such calls, are ILLEGAL. But big, monopolistic
>corpserations like Verizon have no problem flouting the law when, even if
>penalized, they have a net profit in doing so.

There you go with that "one considers harassment" line again. Just
because you think it is doesn't make it so in the eyes of the law.
Have you bothered to research your state's laws concerning harassment
and how to deal with it? If so, what are the applicable sections of
code? If not, what are you waiting for? And if you feel like they'll
still profit from their actions after being penalized, why are you
even bothering with it?

>>>>>I demanded that the calls stop, and was told I would be placed on
>>>>>Verizon's
>>>>>"do not call" list, but that it would take a few weeks to do this.
>>>>>Finally,
>>>>>the hang-up calls stopped. However, THESE CALLS RECENTLY BEGAN AGAIN,
>>>>>the
>>>>>same as the last time, despite my supposedly being on their list of
>>>>>customers NOT to be called. Today I used the *69 service to discover
>>>>>that
>>>>>Verizon (309-820-9933) was again the source of these unwanted calls. I
>>>>>called this source number, and again was told I would be placed on their
>>>>>"do
>>>>>not call" list and it would take some time for this to be in effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>I HAVE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC for the purposes of:
>>>>>1) Punishing this arrogant corperation for its repeated harassment and
>>>>>disregard for and invasion of my privacy.
>>>>>2) Assuring I will NOT be charged for my call to *69 and any other
>>>>>expenses
>>>>>incurred as a result of Verizon's actions.
>>>>>3) Assuring that I will NEVER receive another telemarketing call from
>>>>>Verizon under any circumstances.
>>>
>>>> You didn't read the Federal DNC law very well, did you?
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter - people have the right to freedom from unwanted,
>>>harassing calls.
>>
>> What? The law that was written to control unwanted telemarketing
>> calls "doesn't matter"? You really ought to do your research before
>> you post silly rants.
>
>"Silly rants." Typical ad-hominem attack from a defender of the
>indefensible, and one that has yet to explain why he is defending the guilty
>party in question, but indicates that he is not a shill whose job is to do
>just that.

Yeah, it's a silly rant, much like your "the government was behind the
9/11 attacks" stupidness.

>>>WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING VERIZON? An employee? - more likely an executive, I
>>>suspect?
>>
>> Please point out one instance where I "defended" anyone. All I did
>> was point out:
>>
>> 1. You posted your rant to an unrelated group (again).
>
>Not a rant, a legitimate complaint on a RELEVANT newsgroup - about Verizon.

What part of 'cellular' do you not understand? And I won't even waste
my time pointing out the legal differences between calling a landline
versus a cellular line. Obviously, the point would be lost on your
trollish mind.

>> 2. You have to prove harassment in accordance with applicable law.
>
>I'll let the FCC and other appropriate agencies determine that, based on my
>complaints.

They'll deem your complaint invalid and dismiss it. It's not their
fault you handle things the wrong way. The FCC doesn't investigate
harassment. That's a state crime. Deal with it the right way and
piss off already.

>> 3. You obviously didn't read the "existing business relationship"
>> clause of the Federal DNC law.
>
>That allows telemarketing calls to a party you are already doing business
>with, but when that party specifically expresses the desire to be LEFT ALONE
>and NOT CALLED, the caller is obligated to obey that wish.

True, but considering your past history here, how do we know you're
telling the truth about any of this? Your credibility here is pretty
well shot. You've been given sound advice as to how to proceed, but
you insist on fighting in this group. You hear that dinging sound?
That's Verizon winning round after round. Again. Just how much of
your time have you wasted with this matter up until now? And how much
more are you willing to waste to show no results?

>> And it would seem you are the same douchebag that posted a bitch rant
>> here in July about getting charged for a 411 call (which you never
>> paid for anyways). Perhaps you should just drop your telephone
>> service. It seems a bit too complicated for you to understand.
>
>Ah, "douchebag." True gentleman you are, and so rational too!

Well, if the douchebag fits...

It seems you were soundly chastised here for bitching about a
non-issue last year. Why should we believe this is any different?

>And you have access to my past complaint as well - interesting!

Yes, access to Google Groups is restricted on a "need to know basis."
Please tell me you aren't this stupid in real life. Oh, wait,
considering what issues you waste your time complaining about, you
probably are.

>You have now shown beyond reasonable doubt that you are most likely a SHILL,
>working for Verizon, and probably specifically assigned to counter
>complaints against them posted to the Internet.

And there's the much anticipated "SHILL" accusation. Just because you
can't figure out how life works doesn't give you free reign to bitch
and moan and make baseless accusations. You've worked hard to earn
the name 'douchebag'. Enjoy it!

>Some people will even sell their soul if the price is right - -
>Hope you sleep well at night.
>If Verizon cans you for being so ineffectual here, you can always get a job
>with the CIA. I'm sure you would fit right in!

If anyone wants to see how big of a nut case this guy is, check his
posting activity on Google Groups, especially in the conspiracy
groups. I suspect he's a pothead, too, which would explain his
paranoia.

Seriously, put down the bong for a while until you come to your
senses.