Do skeezy telemarketers have unions, also the funniest link-exchange SPAM I have to date received...

BLOT: (29 Nov 2011 - 12:10:40 PM)

Do skeezy telemarketers have unions, also the funniest link-exchange SPAM I have to date received...

I have an almost insane urge to watch Dreamcatcher, the 2003 adaptation of a Stephen King novel. It is an ok movie. Flawed, but quirky enough to be interesting. Somehow that quirk brings me back to watching it more than anything like quality ever would have. The interactions amongst the four friends at the center is great, over-acting Morgan Freeman is fun to watch, the many scatalogical elements are top notch (including, of course, the shit-weasels), and watching an ex-New Kid on the Block shout, "HELLO MISTAH GAY!" is just plain, family entertainment. What I need to watch is the new Captain America movie. I've had that for something like a month from Netflix and always end up watching something else instead. Dammit. Maybe I'll watch Cap now and then watch Dreamcatcher later. I'll at least start Cap and see how I take it.

As I've said before: my ability to "take" the new crop of summertime blockbusters is pretty much at a nil. I just can't. They are too overblown, to much invested in their own spectacle, too keen to stretch themselves out for at least half an hour too much, to substitute explosions and slow-motioned, green-sceened, and wire assisted flips for proper action. And you know what else? When they keep turning the entire background into passable, but obvious, CG it ends up feeling like I could just play a videogame and get more enjoyment out of it. I say this fully expecting the upcoming Sherlock Holmes movie to have a good percentage of CGed backgrounds, but I'll take that to see Jude Law in a mustache. You know what I wouldn't take to see Jude Law in a mustache? Well, the price of a movie ticket and annoying CG is not on that list...

***

Over the past couple of weeks, I've been getting a large number of calls (n>5 per day) from various "telemarketing" outfits. I put that in quotes because a lot of these are the sort that don't pick up when you do: either cheap robo-units that are outsizing the quantity above the flesh-units' ability to claim live connections, or something like trolling calls designed to find out when people are home and how much they are willing to take. A bit of the old datamining. We have a good, albeit cheap, answering machine and caller ID. Only one phone in this house rings right now, and it can be ignored. There is very little they can do to properly annoy us outside of the need to glance at caller ID. Here's an interesting additional fact: despite coming from a number of different sources, all of these sources seem to be near the Seattle, WA area. Is there something I am missing here?

Ready for the crazy? Last week, starting about Wednesday afternoon, these calls stopped. They restarted yesterday. Whoever is doing this (and it seems to be multiple whos), gave their workers and call-center the weekend off, including Thanksgiving and Black Friday. This means that while they are vaguely illegit companies, they have a staff of which they take care. Do...skeezy telemarketers have unions? Is this a family business? Is there honor amongst thieves? Is Thanksgiving an important holiday to phone pests? Is there a particularly bad penalty if you annoy people on a national holiday? Maybe if they are trying to find a pattern of when you are home, they figure a holiday weekend is bad data.

Speaking of pests, as the guy who tends to the UAH list of online databases, I get regular emails about, "HEY, LOOK AT THIS AWESOME LINK!" They tend to fit two patterns, the main difference is that Pattern A points out a link that was not working on our list and then offers another link its place, and Pattern B skips the broken link note and adds an extra paragraph of description. Pattern A is more common, but has been absent of late (maybe it is trigged by the presence of a broken link and we have them all fixed now) so Pattern B has been picking up steam. And when I say pattern, I do not mean they have a general shape they take. I mean they are effectively form letters that claim to come from different email addresses and be about different things but the general shape is identical to the two forms above.

I do not know if the person with a legit link is using a third party as a form submit (likely), or if someone is paid to place a bunch of links and then hires agents who send out emails all day (also likely). At any rate, I get them and by and large ignore them, though I at least consider their content because it would be foolish to completely discount the content based on the methods. Usually, though, they are the sort of thing that we don't want to link because it would neither do us or our students or our faculty any good nor is it good enough quality or quantity to really consider.

Yesterday, I got what will go down as my favorite. I'm keeping it. I might even print it out and frame it. Basically, it is a Pattern B: I see you have a list of resources for X, here is link Y that should do you some good, please consider Y for the following reasons, thanks because I know you will love it!, signed Z. Keep in mind I organize a list of electronic resources for a college environment. The majority are aimed at academic pursuits and research materials. What was this link? Want to guess? Go ahead, take a moment...then look down...

It was for a senior citizen dating site. Either they are aiming for our "alternative students" or the message is clear: "The chance of getting a job sucks, how about a Sugardaddy/momma?"

No doubt somewhere on that page there is message about "seniors" and their search brought it up, misinterpreting the word. Still. I'm picturing the research paper that concludes, "Sandra is looking to get back out there now that her kids are grown and her husband has died by heart attack, she would make a hot date because of her stripper past and knowledge of tantric techniques for people over 60."

OTHER BLOTS THIS MONTH: November 2011