The first amendment doesn't work like that...

[icantbelievethesepeople]

wireless customers are especially agitating, they think that because they pay a monthly bill, everything should be free...which is very strange. What is is about doing exactly what you agreed to do that tempts one into thinking they are entitled to something else that was not agreed to? The guy with the five lines, how would he like it if someone started releasing info about his account, or even WORSE, making changes to the account just because someone called and started threatening? Wireless customers are very strange indeed/

[CrazedClerkthe2nd]

wireless customers are especially agitating, they think that because they pay a monthly bill, everything should be free...which is very strange. What is is about doing exactly what you agreed to do that tempts one into thinking they are entitled to something else that was not agreed to? The guy with the five lines, how would he like it if someone started releasing info about his account, or even WORSE, making changes to the account just because someone called and started threatening? Wireless customers are very strange indeed/

Yes they are. Of all the industries I've worked in, I've never seen as many whackos as I have in the wireless business. I get that phones are important to people, I get they are practically a necessity, but that's still no reason to lose your freaking mind over them.

[MoonCat]

Wait, this person was only "missing" for 7 hours? Jeeeez, I have relatives I haven't spoken to for 7 YEARS and I doubt they assume that I've gone missing!

I agree that the person probably just doesn't want to talk to this nutcase.

[Monterey Jack]

From what the customer told me, they'd been out of contact with the relative for around 7 hours.

That's shorter than the average work shift, and this idiot thinks the other person is "missing"? That's akin to a dog that actually thinks its owner has abandoned them forever when they go off to work in the morning, and is OVERJOYED!!! when they come back every afternoon.

[Slave to the Phone]

I called my Mom today. I like to check in with her once a week. She didn't pick up and hasn't called me back yet. Its been over 8 hours. Am I panicking? Am I calling the police and her cell phone server?

No, I'm assuming that she is busy and will call me tomorrow when I can't answer because I'm at work.

[notalwaysright]

That's shorter than the average work shift, and this idiot thinks the other person is "missing"? That's akin to a dog that actually thinks its owner has abandoned them forever when they go off to work in the morning, and is OVERJOYED!!! when they come back every afternoon.

lol, nailed it. Some are more like goldfish, like large perpetually angry goldfish.

[Teskeria]

Unless there is a legitimate reason to presume they are in danger, an adult must be missing 24 hours before you can file a missing persons report on them. which the 'relative' may have been fully aware of. which would mean there is no legitimate reason to worry. which to me would say they told the 'relative' to stop harrassing them and then stopped answering any calls from that person or (if possible - I dont use a cell) blocked them.

[wolfie]

SC: What is this you're not understanding???? I was supposed to get a $200 credit. My bill should show a $200 credit. GIVE ME A $200 CREDIT!
Me: (boy...that escalated quickly) You already got a $200 credit against which we charged your phone and your first month of service.
SC: Unacceptable! I refuse to pay for service I haven't used yet!
Me: Again I apologize but I can't change the way our billing system works. You have to pay in advance.
Me: If you mean I am going to give you an extra $200 on top of the $200 you already got, then no.
SC: Fine. SCREW YOU, I'm going to D-Mobile! *click*


SC: Look, I'm not asking for the world here. I don't need all the details on the account, I just need to know if it's active.
Me: I realize that may seem like a basic request, but active or suspended status is considered account specific information and therefore I need verification before I can provide it.
Me: I definitely sympathize with you but if this is truly an emergency you should contact the police. They are able to contact us directly to get information they need for any investigation.
Me: Ma'am if I release that information to you, I could lose my job. I understand this is an emergency situation but there's really nothing I can do here.
SC: Look I have 5 lines with <red checkmark> and I'm seriously thinking of taking them to your competition because of how I'm being treated here.
SC: That's too late! I need to talk to someone now. There's no manager or supervisor there who can make an exception?
Me: Absolutely not.
SC: Fine. I'll take my 5 lines and go to a company who actually cares about people.
*click*

Have these people not heard of early termination fees? No indication of how long the second guy was with you (he may no longer be under contract), but it sounds like the first person had just opened an account, so they'd have the full 2 year contract remaining.

[catcul]

Unless there is a legitimate reason to presume they are in danger, an adult must be missing 24 hours before you can file a missing persons report on them. which the 'relative' may have been fully aware of. which would mean there is no legitimate reason to worry. which to me would say they told the 'relative' to stop harrassing them and then stopped answering any calls from that person or (if possible - I dont use a cell) blocked them.

Actually, that's a Hollywood fabrication. Police Department recommend reporting a person as soon as you know that someone is missing.

Hollywood has lied to us again? What a shock.

[Jay 2K Winger]

Actually, that's a Hollywood fabrication. Police Department recommend reporting a person as soon as you know that someone is missing.

Hollywood has lied to us again? What a shock.

I learned that fact on Q.I.! It was quite interesting, of course.

[MadMike]

The number of people who have that delusion about the first amendment is *huge*.

I encountered way too many of them when I was co-sysop of a BBS for a dozen years.

We get that from time to time on this board as well. I don't know which part is funnier -- the fact that the First Amendment doesn't apply to privately owned message boards, or that this particular board and its owner are based in the U.K.

I also remember when spammers used to try to claim that the First Amendment gave them the right to send out their crap.

[Seshat]

I just wanted to say that I'd be delighted if people treated my grandma like the OP treated the grandma in the last story.

OP, you and your co-worker were patient, kind, gave her an option to solve the problem, and then were gracious about helping her cope with the consequences of having left her grandkids' data open to them exceeding their limits.

Hopefully she took you up on the option of stopping them when they went over, and so won't have this problem again.

Anyway: she sounded like a sweet, if naive and puzzled grandma. And you two were sweet in response.

[smileyeagle1021]

Yeeeah, far too many ignorant people assume the First Amendment (and really, most other amendments in the Bill of Rights) means that they are immune from anyone stopping them doing/saying what they want.

I actually was having almost exactly this conversation with someone a while ago.
They tried to say that I was violating their first amendment rights by disagreeing with them... I pointed out that the beauty of freedom of speech is that we all have it, you are free to say whatever you want, and I'm free to tell you to off.

[Seanette]

So their version was that they have freedom to spout off, while you do not?

[smileyeagle1021]

So their version was that they have freedom to spout off, while you do not?

Well remember, it's called entitlement... they are special snowflakes at the center of the universe and the rest of us are just props for their epic adventure.