COMMENTARY

Arm yourself against evil telemarketers

Kristin Davis

In a little over a month, I’ve switched long-distance carriers twice and applied for more credit cards than I care to think of. Why? The interminably present, eternally bothersome telemarketer.

One week I actually lost count of how many times MCI telephoned. I finally caved in. The next week, I lost count of how many times AT&T called.

I’ve tried polite refusal. I’ve told them I wasn’t there. I’ve hung up, and even stopped answering the phone during the evenings, hoping any non-solicitor will leave a message. But sometimes after a long day of classes and work, it seems easier simply to answer the questions or change long-distance companies when there is no cost to me, anyway.
They are all offering the same rates.

We’ve all heard the “Congratulations! You’ve qualified to win a number of prizes for being a Visa or MasterCard holder — now which four magazines would you like to purchase?” These solicitors have called me at least five times in the past six months.

Perhaps these facts from antitelemarketer.com would have helped shake my lethargy sooner:

• Telemarketing is a $400-billion-a-year business.
Americans lose $40 billion a year to fraudulent telemarketers.
• Telemarketers have the firepower to make 560 calls per second (or 24 million per day).
On average, only 24 percent of what you donate as a result of a telemarketing call will get to the charity — the rest goes to the telemarketing company hired to make the calls.
The average American is called two to three times per day.
• The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, passed to protect consumers from telemarketers, has proven inefficient due to several loopholes.
• The same telemarketer will often call an elderly person day after day, building a relationship with the individual, until s/he thinks the solicitor is a friend trying to sell them something, not a stranger.

And we do have rights.

Telemarketers must maintain a do-not-call list. If you ask to be put on this list, it is against the law for them to call for one year. Also, a telemarketer must provide you with the name of the company, address, phone number and the name of the caller.

Failure to do so is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Humor is always a good route to go in fighting these nuisances. We’ve all heard some of the telemarketer comebacks.

If they offer to sell you money, tell them you just filed for bankruptcy and you could sure use some.

If they start out with “How are you today?” you can say, “Why do you want to know?” If MCI or AT&T call to offer you their latest plans to keep in touch with your friends, tell them you don’t have any friends … then ask, “Would you be my friend?”

Whatever you do, try to remember they have called you. Telemarketers have intruded into your home and your privacy.

And until—or unless—more laws are passed, take hold of the precious few rights you do have.

COMMENTARY

Arguing only gives the cause publicity

Sean Oakley

The yellow “I Agree with Eric” T-shirts came and went. The arguments and debate came and went. But before the whole incident fades into forgotten memories, let’s take one more look.

At first I didn’t even notice the yellow T-shirts. In fact, my first exposure to them was one night when my roommate was complaining about them and pointed one out to me.

I thought, “Who cares?”

Those adorning yellow shirts never stopped me to preach, in fact never even said a word to me. If the shirts had not been pointed out, I would have never noticed them. It wasn’t like the shirt-wearers were sitting outside some coffee shop, self-righteously spreading the air with their superior ideologies and wisdom.

So why can’t people just not look?

But then letters-to-the-editor started coming in to The Appalachian and shirt-wearers started complaining about how they were unfairly labeled and criticized because of their “I Agree with Eric” T-shirts.

And then I thought, well, what do you expect if you are walking around campus wearing a bright, yellow T-shirt spouting your religious beliefs?

It’s like war protestors who get mad because not everyone agrees with them, then run out of their way to applaud protestors for their courageous efforts. Sometimes I think that when people decide to preach their beliefs, they expect some grand, memorial parade down King Street in their honor.

The one thing Americans cannot stand is being preached to, especially when it comes to the topic of religion. So what do you expect when you’re throwing yellow T-shirts in people’s faces?

Then it hit me.

The “I Agree with Eric” campaign was a success.

I didn’t catch wind of it from a T-shirt, or Eric, or any of his counterparts. I caught wind of it from someone who was complaining about it.

And the more people who wrote into The Appalachian complaining or explained to their friends the whole “I Agree with Eric” campaign and how much they hated it, the more publicity the “Eric” campaign generated.

So I would like to commend “Eric” coordinators on quite a successful campaign. Though I do not agree with its intentions, I do admire the way it was carried out.

I know there were other students like me who didn’t care one way or another. Even if I had discovered the T-shirts on my own, I probably would have just given a little laugh and never thought about it again.

But after enduring several painful, trying days during which all I heard were people ranting and raving about how horrible the T-shirt campaign was, I could not get away from the “I Agree with Eric” controversy.

Sometimes complaining or arguing only gives defendants a platform from which they can exert more publicity. So in a way, the “Eric” campaign taught me something.

In light of past opinions, I realized, first, no matter what I ever wrote, anti-war protestors would twist my words around and use them in the context they wished. So there was no point trying to combat fanatically blissful ignorance with hard facts that people aren’t going to read anyway.

And second, I learned that by arguing with them, even if proving them wrong was easy and at times comical, I was only giving them more publicity. (This was quite evident after the number of letters-to-the-editor following my last column.)

Finally, I realized I should just ignore protestors of the war on terrorism.

I encourage everyone else who agrees with me to do the same. We are the silent majority; we are right and we know what’s really going on. Arguing with protestors only gives them more publicity.

Laugh and turn away next time you see someone screaming about global injustice by the hand of the tyrannical United States.

They don’t know what they’re talking about, and they’re certainly not going to enlighten you.

Our Perspective ...

Attendance debacle

After empty seats became the dominant story line at men’s and women’s home basketball games last season, several university entities recently launched a joint task force to examine potential methods to boost attendance.

Officials from the Athletics Department, Student Government Association (SGA) and the Student Athlete Advisory Board (SAAB) have joined forces to reverse this trend.

This coalition of university officials and student representatives held its first round of talks Sunday evening, as the task force began analyzing potential causes of the miniscule attendance of last season.

Xan Harrington, SGA president, said poor attendance stems from many men’s and women’s home basketball games being scheduled at times that directly conflict with the average student’s schedule.

“Most of the games are during the week, and most students are [too] busy with other meetings to attend the games,” Harrington told fellow task-force members Sunday evening.

Though we agree games during the week do indeed interfere with class-related and extra-curricular activities for some students, the scheduling of college basketball games during the week is a common practice across the nation.

Students at other schools routinely pack arenas on weeknights to support their student-athletes, which leaves us no alternative but to discard this reasoning for the low attendance.

Perhaps Roachel Laney, director of athletics, brought the most commonsensical cure to last season’s ailment of empty seats at Seby Jones Arena inside the George M. Holmes Covocation Center to the table.

“If we win and play good basketball, people will come out [to games],” said Laney.

Both the men’s and women’s teams did not meet that criterion during the Holmes Center’s debut season, but we find the student body’s refusal to support its student-athletes on the basis of wins and losses (or weeknight meetings) a bit discouraging.

Perhaps the tradition of success established by the Mountaineer football program has raised students’ levels of expectation for all athletic teams at Appalachian State.

We agree with Laney’s sentiment that an increase in wins will lead to a decrease in the number of empty seats.

However, we are more discouraged about the student body’s unwillingness to venture to the Holmes Center unless a certain team in powder blue is making its first—and perhaps final—appearance on the Boone hardwood.

Students routinely comment on the lack of events held in the multi-million dollar Holmes Center, conveniently ignoring the bevy of volleyball and men’s and women’s basketball games held in the facility throughout the academic year.

To begin this season in a manner geared toward boostin attendance, the task force has organized a pregame event complete with free food and contests designed to stir student interest.

We commend the task force for supporting the Mountaineer basketball program, but feel it is a disheartening commentary on the collective attitude of the student body that such an event is needed to fill the seats of the Holmes Center.