SMS Conversation: Brad and Sean

SMS Conversation: Brad and Sean

Published
Tue 10/23/18 1:22 PM:
I totally understand your personal bias on the matter of telemarketing issues; regardless, on the issue of this particular caller you are wrong. This caller obfuscates caller ID, takes all measures to obscure their actual identity, and even the name they use cannot be found to actually exist. They also use robo-dialers to call cell phones. ALL of this is illegal.
1:22 PM:
... and you know that.
1:24 PM:
But when you are unable to filibuster and browbeat me into submission, you rage quit the argument. Give me a break.
1:28 PM:
Let me guess though: the real reason you hung up is because I was unfair or you were offended or something like that.
1:37 PM:
Yup you’re right.
1:42 PM:
When you know you’re wrong you skip topics and bring something else in to conflate and skew the real topic that you are wrong about.
1:43 PM:
And not wanting to talk to you is just me realizing that I’ve become a live animation of your propensity to argue. Usually it takes place on social media.
1:44 PM:
In regards to caller ID and different numbers being used etc. if you were not ignorant to the industry you would know why that is done and some of it is not by choice.
1:46 PM:
But of course don’t ever try to tell Brad anything because any knowledge you bring to the table will be summarily rejected if he hasn’t possessed it already. I would go as far as to say it hurts your ears to hear information that you didn’t know yourself.
7:09 PM:
The thing is, you seem incapable of seeing the issue of privacy and telemarketers through any perspective but your own. You quickly become defensive whenever the issue arises, and ALWAYS the filibuster and browbeating ensues. You gaslight me at every turn ...as if I am someone to be convinced of a faulty idea in that manner (or any other). If you use logic, reason and truth, and if you present an argument that is cogent, consistent and compelling, my mind is easily changed; but my mind will never be changed by employing tactics like screaming at me almost immediately after I open my mouth to refute your argument, and then hanging up to demonstrate intellectual cowardice.
7:09 PM:
You always start with the fundamental notion that an individual has no moral right to announce to the world that phone calls are unwelcome and expect the demand to be recognized and honored. For you the argument always comes down to legalities ...as if there is no other justification worthy of consideration. But even on the legal question, I am always amazed that you have NEVER EVER agreed that an individual has any moral right to be left alone if he so prefers. You have never once articulated the circumstances in which it would be okay ...EXCEPT in the very specific situation where a telemarketer calls and a transaction occurs during the call. Either you are unfamilier with the actual law, or you deliberately obfuscate and spin the issue much like an attorney zeolously arguing his case.
7:09 PM:
What you do with your own business practices is your business; it’s never my intention to criticize you personally ...and I always am sure to not make the issue personal. But it sure seems that you have an ultimately impossible time contemplating or discussing the issue without you personalizing it and then becoming defensive to the point of becoming incapable of considering anything that might even kinda’ sorta’ seem to be critical of your own business practices to the point where the only option you see is to hang up.
8:15 PM:
Pretty much everything you just said is bullshit. If you think that morality enters the equation when you’re talking about your telephone then you are simply demonstrating how incredibly emotional YOU are about this subject. Only one of us has ever consulted multiple lawyers on this issue while the other one simply decides to interpret law the way he sees fit. You know you’re wrong and so you spin things by adding morality into something that has nothing to do with morals. As much as your warped mind would like to think that the law was put in there for Brad , it wasn’t . Now I know this is just a field that I’ve been working in for 25 years but trust me when I say this, you are an abnormal hater.
8:18 PM:
Oh and you’re also very ignorant about what it takes to run a telemarketing room therefore you assign anything you don’t understand as nefarious. Phone people bad! Yeah you use reason and logic!
Thu 10/25/18 2:04 AM:
YOU are the one who always hangs up, yet you claim that it is I who is “incredibly emotional.” The obvious truth is, your argument is a loser, you know it, and the only avenue you have left is to rage quit, take your ball and go home like a cry-bully who didn’t get his way.
2:05 AM:
As for when “morality enters the equation,” I never suggested that your argument had an ethics component (it’s glaringly absent, in fact), and nor have I made it requisite to mine. What I have said is, ethics, specifically the moral rights of others, namely those who have done all things possible to kindly and respectfully announce that phone calls received from parties with whom no prior invitation or authorization has been given are unwanted, those rights are relevant to AN argument, a moral argument. It’s just, you couldn’t care less about such an argument as it is abundantly evident in your malformed conclusion that, while you may have indeed “consulted multiple lawyers,” consideration focused on the individual on the receiving end of unwanted, unsolicited calls has been absent in the analysis.
2:05 AM:
You summarily dismiss my simple desire to be left alone, and then call me an “adnormal hater” as if that in some way negates my claim to possess such a right. A person vigilant about his privacy and absolute in his desire to not receive calls from anyone he did not invite, authorize contact or ‘establish a business relationship,’ a person who has taken every step necessary to announce to all others his desires, to you that person is, ultimately, some kind of statistical nothingness and thus can simply be ignored, discounted and even attacked for merely wanting to be left alone. You will go ‘round and ‘round with gobbledygook, double talk, ad hominem attacks, assaults on my emotional state and motivations, and every other fallacious tactic you can employ while thinking on your feet, all designed to obscure and confuse rather than reveal and clarify, disparage and discredit me rather than attempt to honestly understand and then honestly refute my argument. I genuinely just want to be left alone, but to you any such claim on moral grounds must conclusively be shattered and destroyed. Fair enough. While it does not offend me to be called a hater in this context, I am impressed with the supreme inconsideration and even callousness of such a view.
2:05 AM:
Notwithstanding anything to do with ethics or even basic decency, strictly limiting the argument to the legalities of the Do Not Call (DNC) and Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) regulations (aside from the ‘501c3, political campaigns et al’ caveats as none are applicable to the given circumstances), the Caller yesterday did in fact violate the law. TSR prohibits ‘deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts and practices,’ and it establishes standards of conduct for telemarketing calls. Just some of the violations include using a robo-dialer to call a cell phone; failing to connect the call to a sales representative within two seconds of my greeting; manipulating caller ID information to obscure identity for law enforcement efforts; while an opt-out mechanism is offered during the call, the Caller has already contacted me on the same number several times in the past two weeks alone; and the Caller was using the call to promote the sale of goods or services.
2:06 AM:
DNC has an entirely other, additional layer of regulations, and the Caller violated some of them as well. First, the DNC Registry applies to “any plan, program, or campaign to sell goods or services through interstate phone calls. This includes telemarketers who solicit consumers, often on behalf of third party sellers. It also includes sellers who provide, offer to provide, or arrange to provide goods or services to consumers in exchange for payment.” Clearly the Caller was selling a product; they even say as much in the robocall portion of the call, which in itself is another TSR violation. Even completely ignoring the TSR, the DNC itself was violated by the Caller.
2:06 AM:
My mind is not warped, not even a little bit; in fact, my mind is absolutely clear on this issue. Nor do I believe that “law was put in there for Brad” ...as if that is even some kind of argument or refutation. TSR and DNC exist for all individuals, even if the vast majority do not take advantage of them. But anyone who chooses to exercise his rights, moral and legal, has the absolute right to do so - my individual rights are not dictated by the masses who are annoyed by unwanted phone calls every day but choose to do nothing about it. I have the moral right, though you disagree on that, but I also have the legal right to not be bothered by unwanted, unsolicited calls ...except from political organizations, charities or telephone surveyors ...but political organizations, charities, or telephone surveyors are NOT exempt if they “provide, offer to provide, or arrange to provide goods or services to consumers in exchange for payment.”
2:06 AM:
Provisions within TSR and DNC are exercised every day by thousands of individuals not dissimilar to me. I am hardly alone. At the end of FY 2017, the DNC Registry contained 229,816,164 actively registered phone numbers. Also during FY 2017 7.1 million consumer complaints about unwanted telemarketing calls were filed, but of course that is a mere fraction of the number of violations. If I am “abnormal” on this issue, it is that I am one of relatively very few who actually stand up for their rights, legal AND moral. But that in no way makes me a “hater” ...unless you mean that I hate - or more like detest the practices of - shady telemarketing operations.
2:06 AM:
What I understand as nefarious is anything that presents itself AS nefarious. I happen to believe that the overwhelming majority of telemarketing operations across the country actually honor the DNC and TSR. This belief is based on the fact that it is typically rare for me to receive calls. The Caller from yesterday has called on at least three previous occasions over the previous two or three weeks ...and I expect the calls to continue to some certain point, like once I have blocked ALL their numbers ...if that’s possible. The Caller is extremely shady, clearly not only unconcerned about basic decency, but they do everything possible to flout the law. By any measure, that is some nefarious shit.
7:52 AM:
You thinking there is a moral right involved in your telephone in any way shape or form shows how completely warped you are. Nothing more needs to be said.
12:04 PM:
That is neither an argument nor a refutation of mine. A summary dismissal of one part of my argument does nothing to advance yours. Clearly you have conceded, else you would have actually attempted to refute my cogent, consistent and compelling argument rooted in facts, not mere unsubstantiated assertions as are routinely employed in yours. And before you can utter some retarded statement like “Oh, I could totally crush your argument, except it simply is not important enough for me to bother,” I laugh in your face in advance for being so pitiful and incredibly impotent. I reassert my argument, and until you attack its actual components using logic, reason and truth instead of ad hominems, diversions, straw-man arguments, appeals to authority, filibusters, projections, obfuscations and any other favorite fallacious tactics of yours, YOU LOSE.
12:17 PM:
You fancy yourself as some great debater and congratulate yourself for winning every debate when in actuality you’re “logic and reason” are simply extensions of your own personal emotions and preferences. Whenever I encounter somebody like you that is completely unaware of themselves and argues complete nonsense, I choose not to engage because you’re wasting my valuable time.
12:18 PM:
If that means I lose in your mind, guess how much I care?
12:18 PM:
I would imagine it’s the same for the poor souls that rub you the wrong way on the internet. LOL
12:25 PM:
LOL Pathetic.
12:29 PM:
No pathetic is a man that’s not willing to work to take care of his family.
1:19 PM:
Another personal attack. Sad.
2:00 PM:
Once again proving how unaware you are of yourself. Maybe you should look back in your texts to count the number of times you called me pathetic and other names. The first time I use it on you you cry personal attack? Are you sure you’re not a liberal because you sure think like one.
2:08 PM:
Perhaps YOU should re-read the texts; what I called names is your behavior, your pathetic behavior, your sad and woeful non-attempt to refute my argument.
2:09 PM:
But don’t let that stop you from yet again somehow finding some offense in it. Meanwhile, you do nothing to address any matter on substance. That sort of behavior is sad, pathetic and incongruent with any bona fide attempt to participate in an intellectual conversation of substance.
2:13 PM:
You attack, project, obfuscate, set up straw man arguments, and employ every fallacious tactic you can muster. To you it is a debate. To you it is a matter of selling ideas not on the substance of your arguments but by bullying, badgering, insulting, deriding, dismissing, and outright attacking what you only see as a personal opponent. Your inability and unwillingness to attack an argument on substance is pathetic, utterly, miserably pathetic.
2:14 PM:
That’s what I was saying about you. LOL Your actions of being too prideful and selfish have led to a pathetic existence where you won’t even get a job to support your family... I was talking about your actions not you silly.
2:15 PM:
More personal attacks. Boring. Sad.
2:18 PM:
But I understand. In the end all you have are personal insults, deflection and endless obfuscation. I am totally laughing at the impotence of your actions.
9:20 PM:
What’s really funny is that I don’t think I read more than a couple sentences in all the stupid shit you wrote while you on the other hand probably lapped up every word I wrote looking for some way to criticize me. I learned a long time ago that your logic and reason is really emotion-filled preferences for you. This is one of the reasons you have insane ideas kiped off the internet and declared intellectually sane by you. The real funny part about this is that you were arguing with somebody who wasn’t even reading what you were writing. The joke’s on you idiot! LOL
9:22 PM:
Has the almighty intellectual Superman Brad just been trolled for the last few days? LOL You’re as easy as the other idiots on the internet.
9:25 PM:
Hell, I almost forgot I trolled you the same way before and even told you about it afterwards. You’re dumber and more gullible and I thought.
9:26 PM:
And yet you provide no argument, no refutation of mine, no substantive contribution to this discussion. Your entire argument is no argument at all but in fact is - as this conversation bears witness - nothing more than an endless barrage of personal attacks accompanied by every dishonest and fallacious tactic possible.
9:45 PM:
You’re like the retard that is arguing two plus two equals 87.5. I’ll try to spell it out a little easier to you. Once you think there are morals involved in a telephone call that’s when I checked out. Because anyone who thinks that there is morality tied up in their cell phone is so far off their rocker that you should not engage with that person because they embody the word crazy. I quit reading what you wrote after that point because where do you go from there? Since you made that comment I’ve been simply trolling you, not reading anything you wrote and just latching onto your last word and throwing it back at you. You on the other hand like any good retard thinks you’re still in the debate with me. All I’m doing is throwing back words that you call me.
9:47 PM:
Curious though, you’re completely justify using those words on me but when I use those words on you I’m attacking you. Not sure of the exact rulebook allows you to do that but once again it kind of shows your lack of congruent thinking.
10:17 PM:
1. You might have rights with your cell phone but once you throw the word morality in there that’s when you were taking the exit to Crazy Town.
2. The reason you can’t call back a number that has called you is because of software / hardware limitations. They are not hiding from you.
3. Not every computer call is a predictive dialer call. You cannot jump to that conclusion without knowing how you were dialed in the call room.
You sit in your self-proclaimed intellectual ivory-tower and criticize most human beings for being so “intellectually weak” and inferior to you. Your criticism comes from ignorance and emotion yet you dub them as some intellectual nugget.
10:23 PM:
You run around trying to criticize and advise everyone how to get the speck out of their eye while at the same time you ignore the piece of lumber in your eye called selfishness and pride, the reasoning behind you shirking your responsibilities as a man and not working whatever job you need to work to pay the bills in your house. If anyone ever mentions that speck in your eye, well they’re attacking you and blah de blah de blah. Well guess what? I’m not holding back anymore. If you think that bashing my profession constantly is okay well then I’m going to pick something out about you and that’s what I’m going to harp on. Hey if it’s the truth it’s okay to say right?
10:27 PM:
Calling me names purely for dishonest and abusive purposes does nothing to advance your non-argument. You with your pathetically thin skin take exception to far too many statements ...just like this one, I bet. But, unlike you far too often, I tend to “call you a name” (as in the previous sentence) when in fact I am mocking a behavior, an idea, an assertion, or some other thing that you have control over ...as opposed to some immutable trait. But - and here’s an important distinction also - I only mock it if I have already criticized it and provided an argument as to why ...AND... you have had ample opportunity to refute my argument and provide your own. So, like in this example, I have criticized you plenty for behavior that has continually demonstrated your becoming offended sometimes by the smallests of PERCEIVED slights and subsequently over-reacting. If I had a dollar for every time you took your ball and went home, I’d be rich. The other way around, though, you would be utterly broke. As you have DEMONSTRATED, you cannot properly handle an honest conversation IF/when you perceive yourself, not merely your idea or position, as being under attack. You argue like a child, not because you lack knowledge or intelligence, but because on SOME issues you argue from belief and emotions rather than reason and evidence. You get hung up on way too many things, probably including this very statement.
10:28 PM:
Let me spell it out..... AS I WROTE... you can ignore the moral argument. IT WAS NEVER ASSERTED AS A REQUIRED ELEMENT. Wow, talk about retarded.

Let me spell it out..... AS I WROTE... you have no argument, only attacks, distractions and every other tactic that only a bully needs to employ. You have ignored the legal argument sure as fuck not “because all I heard was ‘morality’ and so I checked out” ...despite my making it absolutely crystal clear that the component is not requisite to my argument. My argument is anchored to the LEGAL component. That you happily dismiss the ethics component, AS I WROTE, changes NOTHING on the legalities. We can agree to disagree on whether morals have any place in anyone’s decision-making process and/or their purposeful actions toward individuals in the world who wish to not be bothered by telemarketing calls. AS I WROTE... Fine, fair enough, ignore the ethics, okay, but that in no way diminishes the legalities as the latter is not dependant on the former.
10:29 PM:
1. Okay, so you agree that an individual has a moral right. It’s nice to see that you recognize what should have never been disputed. Now please ignore the morality of it and address the legalities of it.
10:40 PM:
2. I never attempted to call back the number. That was never a point. What the Caller does is, they take great steps to hide their very identity. Few reputable telemarketing operations (in my anecdotal experience as a hyper-vigilant consumer) engage in such practices. Every unidentified number that calls any of my telephone lines (and some from Daisy’s as well) is looked up. The reason is, I want to know whether or not to bloke them from being able to ring my phone. The Caller in this case has called a total of at least four times, each time on a different number, each one with several reports by others just like me. Parenthetically, there are a number of websites dedicated to people like me for posting experiences with a telephone number. The numbers are known numbers and correctly associated with the Caller. There are hard and fast laws against CID spoofing, namely the Caller ID Act, which we have never addressed. Red flags are all over the place with this Caller.
10:45 PM:
3. While I readily confess that I have no hard evidence that a robodialer, whether a predictive dialer or something else, was used by this Caller, I’ve listened to the intro several times while simultaneously testing for a human response, and to me it sure seems clear that it’s not a human. I was put on hold (you heard it) for a long time, certainly more than two seconds, which under the TSR is illegal.
11:18 PM:
I have no ivory tower, but, just as many have ample right to be critical of me in some ways, I have the right to be critical of others in some ways. As for criticism of me, I welcome it ...so long as it is fair. There is plenty material there to criticize, and you are welcome to have at it. But if you wish to demean, diminish or degrade something about me, you had better damn well bring an argument and not insults as a lame surrogate.
11:19 PM:
My criticism is born from thoughtful and objective consideration as best as I can hold myself to extremely high standards of critical thinking. The single most important principle is Truth. I am driven to KNOW and understand things correctly, not simply to be RIGHT. I have been this way my entire life, yet to this day you seem uninterested, unwilling or incapable to recognizing this fact. Yes, I like to be right about something, but to me being right means NOTHING if it’s not actually right in the Aristotelian tradition. Moreover, rarely is it that one participant’s position is entirely valid and the other entirely invalid.
11:20 PM:
To me it’s a dialog, an exchange of ideas, not merely taking turns with a microphone so the two can speak past one another. To you it’s a fucking debate wherein you have to right right right and I have to accept it or be destroyed for disagreeing, especially if I back it up with an irrefutable argument that strikes one of your countless touchy fucking nerves.
11:39 PM:
You are wrong on all your points. Pure and simple. I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you in this realm. If you think that an honest exchange of ideas involves name-calling whether it’s of somebody personally or something that comes out of their mouth or an idea that comes out of their head then I am done with “exchanging ideas” with you. Because you walk away from somebody that constantly pokes you in the eye and calls it macular massage doesn’t make you thin skinned, that makes you smart . I bid you adieu.
Fri 10/26/18 12:12 AM:
Wait, I have one last “exchange of ideas.” What person doesn’t have the balls to go out in the workplace so has his wife support their family, does the dishes, and has that wife constantly calling them a loser and useless?... dude, you’re a cuck.
3:21 AM:
Yet again you reduce yourself to personal attacks designed and employed solely to avoid an honest discussion of the issue. As harshly and for as long as it brings you satisfaction ...if that is possible... feel free to attack my character, motivations, emotional state, life choices, relationship with my wife, my wife, my son (ALL of which you periodically have seen perfectly fit to do). All you have achieved is to put yourself on display as a bully who, when his impotent and/or fallacious arguments fail, can only lash out using intimidation and personal attacks with escalating viciousness. Your behavior is that of an insecure intellectual coward who demonstrably does not understand that operating on ad hominems, diversions, straw-man arguments, appeals to authority, filibusters, projections, obfuscations and other deceitful tactics does nothing to advance ones position or constructively add to the discussion. From the VERY BEGINNING of this that has now consumed a fair amount of time, all to avoid honest examination and genuine discussion of the facts and circumstances of the central point, YOU have incrementally taken this to a place where you have pulled out all stops and initiated a scorched-earth approach.
9:24 AM:
I’m not personally attacking you.
9:28 AM:
I understand your playbook a little bit better now. I am simply attacking your actions, I am not attacking you! According to your playbook I can say anything to you that I want to and just call it attacking your ideas or your actions or the things that you say. What’s the problem? You don’t like the play out of your own playbook?
9:28 AM:
But of course you don’t, dickweed
9:35 AM:
If I think that men in our society like you are a problem why am I not allowed to say it? Men that don’t work or like a big shiny apple with a worm hole inside, you don’t need to open up the Apple to know it’s a rotten inside. That’s what I teach my daughters and that’s why I teach my boys. You on the other hand teach your boy that a man doesn’t have to work a man should have his woman go out and make a living while he holds his dick in his hands. Did you know all the people that you admire in life and politics would think that you’re a piece of shit? I’m just wondering how you sleep with yourself at night? When you’re by yourself do you not think that you’re acting like a cuck? I would think it’s a lot harder for you to sleep at night then some telemarketer.
9:36 AM:
If I was a fag would you not be allowed to tell me that what I’m doing is fucked up?
9:38 AM:
Before you’re allowed to criticize what somebody goes out and busts their ass to do for a living, maybe you should get a job first cuck.
10:16 AM:
Wow, what a convincing argument ... maybe for a kindergartener. Feeeeel the rage in the absence of ability to discuss. Attack attack attack! SO impressive.
11:12 AM:
I’ve listened to you denigrate and talk about how immoral telemarketers are dozens of times this year. You realize that’s the business I’m in right? And I have to listen to your claims of tomfoolery with caller ID and phone numbers that you can’t get identified or called back. Your assertions come from complete ignorance of the industry but of course you’ll never listen to somebody who has the answers and is in the industry. Instead you have your own ideas about how it works and why things are done. All your ideas revolve around caller man bad!
11:12 AM:
What you’re missing and what makes you so unaware of yourself is the fact that these people that call you are men they work for a living, you don’t.
11:14 AM:
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of hearing you grate and dehumanize everybody in the business that I’m in. Poke me in the eye long enough.
11:15 AM:
Of course I would expect these types of actions from somebody who grows up in a beta male society where everybody is passive aggressive. It’s called Minneapolis, I’ve been there I know what the fagets are like up there.
11:18 AM:
Good Job, Sean. You, once again, have spent several days and a ton of energy avoiding genuine discussion and instead unnecessarily creating and escalating conflict on the most vicious personal level. While I could reciprocate and engage in savage personal attacks against you (and there is plenty of material from which to draw), nothing good could come from it. Your behavior throughout this exchange can only be described as dispicable. Your intellectual cowardice is epic. The depth of depravity of your personal attacks is bottomless. Your behavior is the epitome of a thin-skinned bully who can dish out rage, animosity and personal insults and attacks to no end, but you cannot handle even the slightest criticism no matter how fair. And even still you seem to think that you hold some kind of moral right to make assumptions and judge me for anything and everything, and have the adacity to pretend that somehow this path of personal destruction is somehow justified. And THEN you talk to ME about lack of self-awareness. Rich!
11:18 AM:
I wasn’t insulting you I was just talking about the stuff that you’re saying. I wasn’t insulting you I was just talking about your ideas. I wasn’t insulting you I was just talking about what you do. Give me a break that’s what cucks and beta males talk like real men grab their balls and make a living or say what they really mean you little fuck
11:21 AM:
I am at a loss for words. You honestly cannot stop yourself.
11:23 AM:
Actually I trolled you for 2 days you were the one who wasted the time stupid fuck
11:31 AM:
By the way, the truth is not despicable it’s just the truth. Because you can’t handle the truth about your own personal life does not make the person speaking the truth despicable.
11:32 AM:
But of course it hurts your ears to hear then you’re going to label it despicable I understand.
11:34 AM:
Your assertions of telemarketers is based on ignorance and falsehoods made up in your own head. My assertions about you not taking care of your family is empirical fact. So who is the despicable one? The one speaking emperical fact or the one speaking things out of ignorance and emotion?
11:34 AM:
YOUR BEHAVIOR is despicable. You can’t possibly be so stupid as to misunderstand my explicit statements.
11:34 AM:
NAME THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11:34 AM:
COUNTER MY ARGUMENT
11:34 AM:
YOU CANNOT
11:35 AM:
ALL YOU DO IS TALK IN CIRCLES
11:35 AM:
Clearly you are incapable of any honest discussion about telemarketing ...and many other issues. You simply slip right back into your ad hominems, diversions, straw-man arguments, appeals to authority, filibusters, projections, obfuscations and other deceitful tactics - it’s all you know: high-pressure intimidation tactics with no holds barred. You have become a product of your own slimy industry rooted in “whatever it takes” to “win” no matter the collateral damage or violations of others’ rights, moral OR legal. For the record, I do not hate telemarketers; I despise telemarketers and anyone else who engage in illegal activity. If you have so much as an ounce of intellectual honesty, you would acknowledge the difference and that I have ALWAYS made that distinction.
11:40 AM:
Caller man bad. That’s where you get all of your assertions from. The things you’re describing are done in my call room out of necessity. And it’s not illegal what I’m doing. You are asserting though that what I’m doing is illegal and Despicable so why don’t you go fuck yourself and find a friend that’s willing to have you poke him in the eye constantly and call it a macular massage.
11:41 AM:
How about you obey the rights of others and honor the DNC?
11:41 AM:
So by extension you’re calling what I do Despicable and you’re calling my everyday actions illegal and immoral. Get a job and then going criticize somebody else’s job loser.
11:42 AM:
How about you acknowledge that others have the right, both moral and legal, to be left alone by anyone out to sell them something?
11:43 AM:
No, you nitwit. What I am calling despicable is your ruthless behavior here in this conversation. You have been a complete and total asshole who has done nothing but avoid avoid avoid and attack attack attack. THAT IS DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11:43 AM:
Now you wanna’ talk about everything BUT the issue?! Fine, mother fucker.....
11:43 AM:
Let’s fucking talk....
11:45 AM:
You know what... Never mind.
11:48 AM:
When a retard tries to convince you that 2 plus 2 is 87.5 is that something you really should be arguing with a retard about? I don’t think so. You are a retard in the telemarketing industry and once again I have neither the time nor inclination to educate a hater such as yourself that does nothing but criticize the industry that I’m in You’ve done this time and time again over and over and over and I’m sick of it. Do you know what the speakable is? Despicable is a friend that thinks it’s okay to talk shit constantly about the business that you’re in. What makes it even richer is this friend doesn’t even have a job.
11:48 AM:
Not an argument. Learn how to discuss things honestly.
11:49 AM:
It is very simple... People who have taken the time to place their phone number on the Do Not Call list DO NOT WANT TO BE CALLED. You can flout that, disrespect it, shit all over it until the end of days, but that IS the reality. One would THINK that you would have gotten a clue the first time you received a complaint; but it’s pretty fucking obvious that the bottom line is, you genuinely do not care about others’ rights in this area. You are a bully. What’s more is, you are proud to be a bully, only you see it as something other than browbeating and intimidating others into submission. You are a car salesman, nothing more, and so it should not surprise me that you conduct yourself in such a manner.
3:07 PM:
Thank you for being honest with me instead of what you have been doing.
What you have been doing is being passive aggressive and throwing it in my face how anyone in my industry is an immoral piece of shit over and over and over. Now doesn’t that feel good to actually say what you feel instead of having it you erupt of you in other ways?
4:48 PM:
I have been expressing myself honestly and forthright this entire time. I told you that your business is your business ...because this issue about you personally has been beaten to death and also had nothing to do with the issue that once, long ago, was actually the issue at hand. Maybe my words or ideas were too complex to comprehend? I don’t think so. Maybe I wasn’t wading into the mud where you insist on dragging things? Whatever the case, you have been behaving precisely as I have described. I didn’t call you names for things unrelated to your behavior throughout this conversation. You, on the other hand, have practically done nothing BUT call me names for everything UNRELATED ...except to the extent you can pretend to fabricate a connection. This entire conversation from beginning to end perfectly illustrates all that I have criticized and chronicled during it. As for your weak projected accusation that I have behaved in some passive-agressive manner, you can stick that up your ass; refusal to invoke scorched-earth tactics does not constitute passive-agression.
4:48 PM:
If you wish to conduct yourself like a high-pressure car salesman, I accept that, but you cannot then also expect to be taken seriously on an intellectual level. ALWAYS my assertions, claims, positions and arguments are open for honest criticism. NEVER do I “sell” an idea like a charlatan sells snake oil. THIS is why you and I reach an impasse so often: because you insist on ramming shit down my throat using every tool of psychological pursuation, and I insist on accepting only valid arguments. But you genuinely do not understand what a valid argument is, because to you an argument is nothing more than a psychological slug fest. The fact that here we are four days later and you still have not addressed ANY of the main argument ...because you are incapable. Your fragile ego gets snagged on any perceived slight, and you perceive many things to be a slight. That’s called being thin-skinned. How many times in your life have you hung up on me? God only knows. How many times have I hung up on you? Oh, that one is easy: NONE.
4:49 PM:
PLEASE GET THIS IDEA INTO YOUR HEAD: I believe that the telemarketing industry as a whole operates ethically. It sure isn’t what I would want to do as a vocation, but I do not fault anyone else who does. What I DO detest and deem “immoral pieces of shits” are those who usurp or ignore the laws that are there not as some strictly legal barrier to be gamed but as a backstop for the millions of individuals who DO NOT WANT CALLS. Stop twisting my words. I have NEVER said that I hate the industry as a whole. You’re like Jim Acosta from CNN behaving poorly and then, when criticized for it, claims “Journalism is under attack.” Give me a break. That’s not really passive-aggression; it’s just a dishonest bitch move.
6:23 PM:
You are so full of crap ola
6:25 PM:
You are among a very tiny percentage of over emotional haters in this country. Your emotions override every part of your life and that’s why you are where you are today. Every choice you make is ruled by your emotions for the most part. I’m sorry that you’re not self-aware enough to realize that but maybe you should take a step back and look at your life and the people around you and then after doing that maybe you should keep your criticism for your fellow man to yourself.
6:25 PM:
Sure I am. That’s why you continue to do everything except actually argue the actual points. Lame.
6:28 PM:
Respectfully, I honestly and emphatically deny your allegations regarding my emotional state, particularly your assertion that my emotions override ANY part of my life. You asserting such demands evidence and an argument. Please provide your best argument as to how it is that my emotions rule me in any way. Let’s see how honest and genuine your efforts can be in this discussion. Go.
6:29 PM:
I’ll wait.
6:43 PM:
The bottom line is this brad, I am sick and tired of somebody who calls themself my friend bashing the business that I am in constantly. Hello McFly, do you not understand this basic idea? To make matters worse you want me to argue the validity of the business that I’m in with you. Then to put icing on the cake you make assertions based on ignorance.
6:44 PM:
I got the message a long time ago you hate my business and everyone in it. Thank you now leave me alone.
6:56 PM:
I have NO problem with your business or any similar one ... except to the extent the business usurps DNS, TSR or any other related reasonable codification of basic rules of decency and respect. None of anything else that I might even mildly protest bothers me.
6:58 PM:
My assertion remains, and so does my argument to support it. Until you refute my argument and provide your own... Please... Shut up.
7:40 PM:
I’ll tell you what, I’ll explain why 2 + 2 does not equal 87.5 when you give me a valid reason why you refuse to work and take care of your family. I’m just wanting to exchange ideas. LOL
7:43 PM:
Cuz if my only choice is to explain the two plus two not equaling 87.5 or shutting up, I’ve got to choose the shutting up
Sun 11/18/18 3:45 PM:
It’s amazing how attacking somebody’s life lowers your desire to talk to that person isn’t it? That was the only point I was trying to make.