h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Someone I know got tired of getting faxes for things he wasn't interested in.

He would pick one of the unsolicited ads received that day and, before leaving for the night would fax them back a 10 page fax and set the machine to resend 100 times.

This was in the days when fax machines used rolls which were terribly expensive.

He found that he received a LOT less unsolicited faxes.

when missouri instituted the no-call list there were certain loopholes in it that still allowed long-distance companies to call you and entice you to leave your current provider (this may be a national loophole, i don't know). it got to the point that when i'd answer the phone and the caller said 'hi this is ishmael calling from mci-' i'd just hang up.

except for at&t. i really love telling them what w**kers they are. they can't call enough! i'll never get tired of telling them to ^%#$ off. fortunately even after i specifically told the call center supervisor to personally remove my phone number from their automatic dialer scheme they continue to call so i have endless opportunity. i just wish they'd call when i'm at home to tell them off and not when i'm at work.

They bring it on themselves.
That's what makes telling them off so much fun.

Whenever a long distance company calls, I tell them that they slammed us once, and as a result we will *never* use their service again. One of the big companies did slam us a long time ago, but I use that on all of them

I suggest that if the privacy laws get overturned, that everyone who doesn't want to receive cold calls over the telephone gets very rude and abusive with the sales agent. That way, your name will get around and no-one will ever want to call you again from that firm. perhaps, even a policeman's whistle down the 'phone ought to get the message across.

If only it worked that way FM:

"One thing that they did in the call centre is if someone were rude to them they would set the dialler to call that person once a day for over a month, just to be rude back." (Post 18)

It's the same with us at the CD store - we've got a customer who constantly calls up asking 'What do you have used by R Kelly?'. We don't bother checking any more, we either put him on hold for a minute or so whilst getting on with some other task, and then tell him that we're all out of R Kelly, or we just leave him on hold until he hangs up.

We have two organisations in Blighty: The Telephone and Mail Preferences Services. I registered with both. I now get NO cold calls or junk mail. If only such a thing existed for email. I have to empty my junk email folder twice daily because it fills up with security patches from 'Microsoft' (i.e. viruses). One day, there is going to be a spam-related murder. It's only a matter of time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3166010.stm

"It appears to have been one of an estimated 10,000 tigers kept by private citizens in America - that is more than remain in the wild."

WTF?

Christ. It amazes me how stupid people are.

If you want to know the true depths of my despair at the nature of the human race, look at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A1314992

There was someone who lived just a couple miles from here who was keeping either a mountain lion or a cougar (I can't remember which) as a pet just a couple years ago. They lived on a farmette next to an older housing development, and they kept the animal in a cage on the side of their barn.

The neighbors were afraid to let their kids play outdoors, just in case the animal managed to escape the cage. The owner of the creature claimed that it had been hand raised and was no danger to anyone at all... completely ignoring the razor sharp teeth and huge claws.

The Township finally make them get rid of the cat as it posed a danger to the community.

Under much protest, the owners took the animal to some kind of "natural habitat, not far from here" where they could visit it regularly. They never said where it was taken to, but there is a wolf sanctuary less than 20 miles away that might possibly have accepted it.

Some people... more money than brains...

<>

It might have posed a real danger to anyuone who looked
like a bowl of sugar frosted flakes.

"Could we extend this to TV adverts? Or Magazine and Billboards?" -- there's a difference: we do opt-in when buying a magazine or switching on the TV. There's a price discount to some other service involved. Without that service (news, articles, whathaveyou) I wouldn't buy the thing in the first place. Furthermore, I take the freedom of either pressing the 'mute' button on the remote as soon as the volume goes up, or switching to another channel, and I take the freedom of flipping over to the next page if the current one has letters in 3" size. None of these points are true when we're talking about spam.

"claiming that it 'infringes the first amendment right to free speech of the telemarketers'" --- hee hee . I'd be the last one to them their right to speak. Spammers, yell as loud as you want, but please don't do it into my autitory (readitory) system. Simple as that!
I wonder whether this senator has his/her doors open 24/7 for everybody to enter his living room and tell him/her all the good news about penis enlargement, viagra, and hidden Nigerian Megadollars.

"You can complain all you want.... since it is "mail", Canada Post cannot NOT deliver it." -- how about spending a dollar to pack all that stuff together and let Canada Post deliver it to where it came from, one originator after the other --- oops, I haven't read far enough

Well, as you said, WTF

So, the US and Britain invaded Iraq unilaterally, without the mandate of the UN, and with the disapproval of much of their own population, and of many other countries around the world.

Now the US is planning to spend over $80 billion of its taxpayers money as a result of that invasion, but a number American politicians want a portion of that to be a loan to Iraq. That's a bit like me busting up your house and then offering to rebuild it for you but charging you to do so Ok, your landlord might have been a bit of a and he's run off, but you didn't ask me to smash up the gaff.

And on top of all that, I've just heard Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison say something along the lines of 'We went into Iraq for the likes of France, Germany, Russia, we did it in their name, and we think this money should be a loan so that Iraq pays us instead of the debts which it owes to them - debts run up because Saddam was arming his country to fight us'

WTF? We all know by now that Saddam was pretty much created by the US government, who were perfectly happy to do so at the time. And we know that the US did *not* go into Iraq in the name of France, Germany, Russia. I'm getting very, very sick of hearing American politicians pontificating about how the invasion of Iraq is some kind of crusade in the name of freedom and how this is all going to make the world a better place.

It's not. It's going to lead to ever more bloodshed and maybe another world war.

Yeah Gosho!
Pretty sad.

*still posting alternate versions of the truth on my page*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3210391.stm

He's suing Britney for pain and suffering? WTF!!! The culture of litigation has already invaded the UK, but I thought the Japanese would be sensible enough not to fall for it

I'D like to sue Britney for pain and suffering.....

Little rant to follow:

Why do manufacturers completely redesign the size and shape of their packaging rather than simply raise the price of said item????????

I am not talking about simply redesigning the logos or stamping "Now softer and smellier" or "Get your USDA-recommended daily supply of Anthrax" on the side.

Say, for instance, that you buy baby diapers (nappies) (just a fer-instance.... I don't buy diapers. This applies to anything you must buy on a regular and on-going basis). You buy a certain brand which you like and the baby likes.

In June, the box has 24 diapers for $11.99. That is .50 each. or $50 per 100.

In July, the newly redesigned box now holds 30 diapers and costs $13.99 (.47 each or $47. per 100). A month later, the box still holds 30 diapers, but costs $15.99 (.53 each or $53 per 100).

Two months later, they have redesigned the box again to hold 24, and the price is $13.99 (.58 each or $58. per 100). You are now paying $2.00 more per box than you did in June for the same number of diapers.

If you use 100 diapers per month, over the 3 months between the original price and the final price, they could have gotten $211.00 instead of $174.00, losing $37.00, not to mention the cost of the change in packaging and associated costs.

To my mind, if they simply raised the price of the original box of 24 by $2.00, they wouldn't waste money on all the redesign, printing, packaging, and advertising on a packaging which has a life of 3 months.

Diapers are a necessity. It isn't as though people are going to throw their hands up and wrap the baby in old newspapers! If you make a good product, which people buy because of its quality and value, why do you piss them off by pretending that they aren't paying more for the product????????

Thus endeth the rant....

That should have read "You are now paying $2.00 more per box".

That should have read "You are now paying $3.00 more per box".

You want to think about it any more or are you all done at $3?

The reason probably is that they wanted to put up the price all along, but by confusing the customer with constant repackaging, they hope that the customer won't notice or will think that they're getting an 'improved' product. It's all about the marketing, baby.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3222321.stm

"But Richard Gravett, chairman of Firle Bonfire Society, said: "There was no racist slant towards anyone from the Travelling community. If anything, it's actually completely the other way.

"It is to try to make people sit up and listen and realise that these people obviously - as all of us do - need somewhere to live."

WTF? Can anyone explain to me the logic behind that statement given the context of the story? Or is Richard Gravett as deluded as Dubya about his actions, and as unable to admit being in the wrong?