Driver to drive?

[Robert Baer]

JosephKK wrote:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:43:44 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:59:40 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:17:43 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:56:53 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:49:58 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..
After the holidays I plan to buy...

http://jfteck.com/

And make some additional modifications.

...Jim Thompson
..well, they lie in saying no extra monthly charges,as caller ID service
is an extra monthly charge.
It's not my problem that you are so cheap that you don't have
caller-ID.

And stop whining... is there anyone who really needs to call you
anyway ?

...Jim Thompson
I _have_ caller ID and it is useless for most of the callers (zero info).
Is "Reject on No Info" difficult for you?

...Jim Thompson
I do not pick up the phone unless i (1) hear a voice, (2) recognize
the voice, and (3) they say something relevant.
Translation: one of 50 pass.
Aha! So you are having an answering machine automatically answer?

Why don't you just build a box that prevents ringing if it doesn't
recognize a "valid" CID?

...Jim Thompson
Isn't that what i had been asking for?
Buy the one I cited.

...Jim Thompson
1) do not like its kludgy "programming", and 2) it costs too much.
Right now i have been enjoying (shh!) s i l e n c e due to the 3 new
services.

Be that as it may, the box is a one time only cost, the added "services"
are recurring monthly cost. Over a years time, the services may well cost
more that the box.
Good point.

However, if the same idiots get thru, there should be a recoverable
record to use in a court of law.

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:17:30 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:41:52 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
tK2dnc6jN77m7KHWnZ2dnUVZ_vRi4p2d@posted.localnet>:

John Devereux wrote:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> writes:

On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:20:29 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
00b713ea$0$17161$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

John Devereux wrote:
Can't remember if this has been suggested, but how about switching to a
cellphone? (Lots of people are doing this anyway).

They tend to be expensive to use by comparison with a land-line, and
there are unresolved health concerns.

Sylvia.
The solution is:
Use landline to call out for long conversations from home,
only connect phone when making a call.
Use cellphone for incoming calls, and also outgoing calls when not home.

Problem solved!

Meaning you are going to pay me my cell phone costs?

You are so incredibly ignorant, do you *ever* think before you come up
with these things?
Oh, no, do not answere.
LOL

Damn, and i used to be worried about my strange excursions.

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:16:15 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:41:15 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
tK2dnc-jN77L7KHWnZ2dnUVZ_vRi4p2d@posted.localnet>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:20:29 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
00b713ea$0$17161$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

John Devereux wrote:
Can't remember if this has been suggested, but how about switching to a
cellphone? (Lots of people are doing this anyway).

They tend to be expensive to use by comparison with a land-line, and
there are unresolved health concerns.

Sylvia.

The solution is:
Use landline to call out for long conversations from home,
only connect phone when making a call.
Use cellphone for incoming calls, and also outgoing calls when not home.

That costs a _lot_ more money than a simple land line.

No way, if you use a prepayed cellphone.
Incoming calls are free.

Maybe where you live, not in the US.

 

[Sylvia Else]

JosephKK wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:50:44 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:46:00 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
00f2da7b$0$6697$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

Robert Baer wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2
weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Why would they assume it was marketeers?

Sylvia.
Maybe that is one of their parrot answers?
So you didn't say it was marketeers, but you didn't ask them why they
thought it was marketeers?

Have you tried asking to speak to a supervisor?

Sylvia.
Personally I think he should talk to a shrink first

That is an asshole thing to say.

Why? Some people do suffer from mental illnesses. Or are you of the view
that suggesting that someone suffers from mental illness is an insult?
Would you take the same view about a suggestion that someone has
diabetes? If not, what's the difference?

Sylvia.

 

[krw]

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:27:44 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:50:24 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:20:29 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

John Devereux wrote:
Can't remember if this has been suggested, but how about switching to a
cellphone? (Lots of people are doing this anyway).

They tend to be expensive to use by comparison with a land-line, and
there are unresolved health concerns.
Not everywhere. It was cheaper for me to have two Verizon cell phones
with the 750Min/Mo deal than one Verizon POTs line (note that Verizon
Verizon). The cell phones came with "free" LD, too, saving a *lot*
more. Prepaid can be a lot cheaper than that (as low as $.06/min).

POTS tariffs are controlled by PUCs and they often have an outdated,
Robinhood, bent.
I have unlimited local which is much less than six cents per minute,
and i use a long distance calling card and pay well under two cents per
minute.

That in entirely dependent on your PUCs tariffs. My local calls were
call unit based and the monthly charges were very high (LD was
astronomical). The point is that POTs lines are not all the same,
everywhere. I got rid of one POTS line for the cheaper cable modem
when they became available and the other for a cell phone, which *was*
cheaper than the local charges alone and got LD thrown in.

And i bet that 750Min/Mo deal required a N-month contract in the $200
range to get it started..am not counting the $$$ per month fees......

12 months, $0 startup, $30 or so for the phones, and less than $60/mo
(fees included). I've renewed it three times (the second and third
were for two years) It's about $5 more now but I've never paid
anything other than phone "upgrades" up front. My contract has
expired so they're constantly sending me renewal adverts. Since I
don't use my phone much I'm thinking about a prepaid phone. AIUI, the
Verizon network is a necessity here so was thinking about PagePlus.
$60/month??? Almost twice what i pay; could not afford _that_.

How about $50 for a crappy POTS line?

 

[Robert Baer]

krw wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:27:44 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:50:24 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:20:29 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

John Devereux wrote:
Can't remember if this has been suggested, but how about switching to a
cellphone? (Lots of people are doing this anyway).

They tend to be expensive to use by comparison with a land-line, and
there are unresolved health concerns.
Not everywhere. It was cheaper for me to have two Verizon cell phones
with the 750Min/Mo deal than one Verizon POTs line (note that Verizon
Verizon). The cell phones came with "free" LD, too, saving a *lot*
more. Prepaid can be a lot cheaper than that (as low as $.06/min).

POTS tariffs are controlled by PUCs and they often have an outdated,
Robinhood, bent.
I have unlimited local which is much less than six cents per minute,
and i use a long distance calling card and pay well under two cents per
minute.
That in entirely dependent on your PUCs tariffs. My local calls were
call unit based and the monthly charges were very high (LD was
astronomical). The point is that POTs lines are not all the same,
everywhere. I got rid of one POTS line for the cheaper cable modem
when they became available and the other for a cell phone, which *was*
cheaper than the local charges alone and got LD thrown in.

And i bet that 750Min/Mo deal required a N-month contract in the $200
range to get it started..am not counting the $$$ per month fees......
12 months, $0 startup, $30 or so for the phones, and less than $60/mo
(fees included). I've renewed it three times (the second and third
were for two years) It's about $5 more now but I've never paid
anything other than phone "upgrades" up front. My contract has
expired so they're constantly sending me renewal adverts. Since I
don't use my phone much I'm thinking about a prepaid phone. AIUI, the
Verizon network is a necessity here so was thinking about PagePlus.
$60/month??? Almost twice what i pay; could not afford _that_.

How about $50 for a crappy POTS line?
Too much; more than i pay even with the new added services.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 22:23:00 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:27:44 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:50:24 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:20:29 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

John Devereux wrote:
Can't remember if this has been suggested, but how about switching to a
cellphone? (Lots of people are doing this anyway).

They tend to be expensive to use by comparison with a land-line, and
there are unresolved health concerns.
Not everywhere. It was cheaper for me to have two Verizon cell phones
with the 750Min/Mo deal than one Verizon POTs line (note that Verizon
Verizon). The cell phones came with "free" LD, too, saving a *lot*
more. Prepaid can be a lot cheaper than that (as low as $.06/min).

POTS tariffs are controlled by PUCs and they often have an outdated,
Robinhood, bent.
I have unlimited local which is much less than six cents per minute,
and i use a long distance calling card and pay well under two cents per
minute.
That in entirely dependent on your PUCs tariffs. My local calls were
call unit based and the monthly charges were very high (LD was
astronomical). The point is that POTs lines are not all the same,
everywhere. I got rid of one POTS line for the cheaper cable modem
when they became available and the other for a cell phone, which *was*
cheaper than the local charges alone and got LD thrown in.

And i bet that 750Min/Mo deal required a N-month contract in the $200
range to get it started..am not counting the $$$ per month fees......
12 months, $0 startup, $30 or so for the phones, and less than $60/mo
(fees included). I've renewed it three times (the second and third
were for two years) It's about $5 more now but I've never paid
anything other than phone "upgrades" up front. My contract has
expired so they're constantly sending me renewal adverts. Since I
don't use my phone much I'm thinking about a prepaid phone. AIUI, the
Verizon network is a necessity here so was thinking about PagePlus.
$60/month??? Almost twice what i pay; could not afford _that_.

How about $50 for a crappy POTS line?
Too much; more than i pay even with the new added services.

Well, that's the price in some areas, take it or leave it. That was
my whole point. Sometimes cell phones are *cheaper* than POTS lines.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:33:04 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:50:28 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Michael wrote:
On Dec 26, 1:25 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmlandthe marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..
You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

Answer the call, listen to the pitch, answer all the questions as if
you want to buy what they're selling right up until you get to where
they want your credit card number or mailing address then say "just a
minute, I have to go to the bathroom; I'll be right back", then lay
the phone down and listen for the BEEP BEEP BEEP letting you know
they've disconnected, then hang up.

When they call back, apologize for the unreliable phone connection
and repeat the above procedure, with variations like interrupting the
caller to discuss your grandson's first tooth, your hernia operation/
kidney stone/colostomy bag, how the Liberals/Conservatives/Communists/
Christians/Muslims/Atheists are ruining the country, or whatever
amuses you. Eventually they'll decide they're not going to be able to
sell you anything and cross your number off their list.

It may take a while, and the bastards may resell your number to
somebody else, but keep at it. AFAIK it's the only sure way to get rid
of them without going completely off-grid.

Mark L. Fergerson
Actually this is what I have been doing for years: I ask if this a
courtesy call, if yes, I apologize, ask them to wait a second please
and follow procedure above. Took less than 30 seconds of my time (I
dropped my land line some time ago, they do not call cell
phones.....yet). If everybody followed this procedure, phone
telemarketing would die out
Well, you are _damn_ lucky they did not hang up the instant you answered.
These idiots always hang up like that.

Just so that there is less misunderstanding, i get lots of these calls as well.
The phone rings, and if i or the answering machine picks up, they hang up.
It may be a form of privacy intrusion.
I agree.
But it is virtually impossible to get the idiots to stop.
Really asinine when the same caller calls up to 5 times in a day.

So do you get CNID blocked?

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:00:08 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:37:09 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:21:30 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:20:44 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
PeterD wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:38:11 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800) it happened Robert
Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
1KOdndg809PrBqjWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@posted.localnet>:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers
that constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at
least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a
"UUU" "no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message
that the call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the
so-called call annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning
the message was a blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue
to Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

Change to ex-directory and select no inclusion in any public catalogues.
This will make you invisible to all but the most determined random
number phone spammer systems. It stops friends finding you too.
* Does not work; being unlisted makes zero difference, changing phone
numbers gives peace for a few weeks.
I do pass on new phone number to friends only and they do not blab.
I use the standard 555-1212 on web forms.

[snip]

Sounds to me that one of your "friends" is not a friend ;-)

No wonder, if you whine to your friends like you whine here ;-)

...Jim Thompson

No long term memory? And you want to make a product that does much
of what Robert wants. Consistency error.

It's already made, as I've previously posted.

Lacks CID pass-thru feature, but they're working on it.

Whose memory is it that's going ?

...Jim Thompson

Saw it. Also saw that it was not that useful.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:35:08 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:43:44 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:59:40 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:17:43 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:56:53 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:49:58 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..
After the holidays I plan to buy...

http://jfteck.com/

And make some additional modifications.

...Jim Thompson
..well, they lie in saying no extra monthly charges,as caller ID service
is an extra monthly charge.
It's not my problem that you are so cheap that you don't have
caller-ID.

And stop whining... is there anyone who really needs to call you
anyway ?

...Jim Thompson
I _have_ caller ID and it is useless for most of the callers (zero info).
Is "Reject on No Info" difficult for you?

...Jim Thompson
I do not pick up the phone unless i (1) hear a voice, (2) recognize
the voice, and (3) they say something relevant.
Translation: one of 50 pass.
Aha! So you are having an answering machine automatically answer?

Why don't you just build a box that prevents ringing if it doesn't
recognize a "valid" CID?

...Jim Thompson
Isn't that what i had been asking for?
Buy the one I cited.

...Jim Thompson
1) do not like its kludgy "programming", and 2) it costs too much.
Right now i have been enjoying (shh!) s i l e n c e due to the 3 new
services.

Be that as it may, the box is a one time only cost, the added "services"
are recurring monthly cost. Over a years time, the services may well cost
more that the box.
Good point.
However, if the same idiots get thru, there should be a recoverable
record to use in a court of law.

Service or box either way.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:04:34 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:50:44 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:46:00 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
00f2da7b$0$6697$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

Robert Baer wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2
weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Why would they assume it was marketeers?

Sylvia.
Maybe that is one of their parrot answers?
So you didn't say it was marketeers, but you didn't ask them why they
thought it was marketeers?

Have you tried asking to speak to a supervisor?

Sylvia.
Personally I think he should talk to a shrink first

That is an asshole thing to say.

Why? Some people do suffer from mental illnesses. Or are you of the view
that suggesting that someone suffers from mental illness is an insult?
Would you take the same view about a suggestion that someone has
diabetes? If not, what's the difference?

Sylvia.

I have corresponded with Robert for some time, he is not as you would portray.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:17:51 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:41:15 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
tK2dnc-jN77L7KHWnZ2dnUVZ_vRi4p2d@posted.localnet>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:20:29 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
00b713ea$0$17161$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

John Devereux wrote:
Can't remember if this has been suggested, but how about switching to a
cellphone? (Lots of people are doing this anyway).

They tend to be expensive to use by comparison with a land-line, and
there are unresolved health concerns.

Sylvia.
The solution is:
Use landline to call out for long conversations from home,
only connect phone when making a call.
Use cellphone for incoming calls, and also outgoing calls when not home.

That costs a _lot_ more money than a simple land line.

No way, if you use a prepayed cellphone.
Incoming calls are free.
...and how does one use a cell phone for dial-up access to the internet?

Many cell phones can do that. Usually through a USB connection.

 

[Sylvia Else]

JosephKK wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:04:34 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:50:44 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:46:00 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
00f2da7b$0$6697$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

Robert Baer wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2
weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Why would they assume it was marketeers?

Sylvia.
Maybe that is one of their parrot answers?
So you didn't say it was marketeers, but you didn't ask them why they
thought it was marketeers?

Have you tried asking to speak to a supervisor?

Sylvia.
Personally I think he should talk to a shrink first
That is an asshole thing to say.
Why? Some people do suffer from mental illnesses. Or are you of the view
that suggesting that someone suffers from mental illness is an insult?
Would you take the same view about a suggestion that someone has
diabetes? If not, what's the difference?

Sylvia.

I have corresponded with Robert for some time, he is not as you would portray.

He many or may not be mentally ill, but that was not the point I was making.

Sylvia.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:37:31 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:00:08 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:37:09 -0800,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:21:30 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:20:44 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
PeterD wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:38:11 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:15:06 -0800) it happened Robert
Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
1KOdndg809PrBqjWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@posted.localnet>:

Well i tried one of those recordings on
http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html and the marketeers
that constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at
least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a
"UUU" "no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message
that the call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the
so-called call annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning
the message was a blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue
to Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..

Change to ex-directory and select no inclusion in any public catalogues.
This will make you invisible to all but the most determined random
number phone spammer systems. It stops friends finding you too.
* Does not work; being unlisted makes zero difference, changing phone
numbers gives peace for a few weeks.
I do pass on new phone number to friends only and they do not blab.
I use the standard 555-1212 on web forms.

[snip]

Sounds to me that one of your "friends" is not a friend ;-)

No wonder, if you whine to your friends like you whine here ;-)

...Jim Thompson

No long term memory? And you want to make a product that does much
of what Robert wants. Consistency error.

It's already made, as I've previously posted.

Lacks CID pass-thru feature, but they're working on it.

Whose memory is it that's going ?

...Jim Thompson

Saw it. Also saw that it was not that useful.

If it had CID "pass-thru" it'd be perfect.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Robert Baer]

JosephKK wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:33:04 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:50:28 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Michael wrote:
On Dec 26, 1:25 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:15 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

Well i tried one of those recordings onhttp://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.htmlandthe marketeers that
constantly call _continued_ to call; i "gave it a try for at least 2 weeks.
What really pissed me off was that one of them came up with a "UUU"
"no number" ID and so i (finally) used *57, got the message that the
call was traced; after trapping 3 of them i called the so-called call
annoyance bureau and they had *NO* record, meaning the message was a
blatant lie.
The PUC said that *57 was not for tracing marketeers and that i
should not have used it, and that they would not press the issue to
Qwest (my "provider").
Say what? How the hell else can i catch these bastards?
Pissant bureaucrats!
**
It would appear that a TOTAL disconnect of my phone _might_ stop
these calls..
You're doing it wrong. You're assuming Government will help you and
getting pissed off when you should be having fun with them.

Answer the call, listen to the pitch, answer all the questions as if
you want to buy what they're selling right up until you get to where
they want your credit card number or mailing address then say "just a
minute, I have to go to the bathroom; I'll be right back", then lay
the phone down and listen for the BEEP BEEP BEEP letting you know
they've disconnected, then hang up.

When they call back, apologize for the unreliable phone connection
and repeat the above procedure, with variations like interrupting the
caller to discuss your grandson's first tooth, your hernia operation/
kidney stone/colostomy bag, how the Liberals/Conservatives/Communists/
Christians/Muslims/Atheists are ruining the country, or whatever
amuses you. Eventually they'll decide they're not going to be able to
sell you anything and cross your number off their list.

It may take a while, and the bastards may resell your number to
somebody else, but keep at it. AFAIK it's the only sure way to get rid
of them without going completely off-grid.

Mark L. Fergerson
Actually this is what I have been doing for years: I ask if this a
courtesy call, if yes, I apologize, ask them to wait a second please
and follow procedure above. Took less than 30 seconds of my time (I
dropped my land line some time ago, they do not call cell
phones.....yet). If everybody followed this procedure, phone
telemarketing would die out
Well, you are _damn_ lucky they did not hang up the instant you answered.
These idiots always hang up like that.
Just so that there is less misunderstanding, i get lots of these calls as well.
The phone rings, and if i or the answering machine picks up, they hang up.
It may be a form of privacy intrusion.
I agree.
But it is virtually impossible to get the idiots to stop.
Really asinine when the same caller calls up to 5 times in a day.

So do you get CNID blocked?
Some of the callers (the most frequent ones usually) had no ID or

number ("unknown" or "unavailable" or blank).
I have been enjoying silence WRT those idiots for a while now.

 

[Robert Baer]

JosephKK wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:17:51 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:41:15 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
tK2dnc-jN77L7KHWnZ2dnUVZ_vRi4p2d@posted.localnet>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:20:29 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
00b713ea$0$17161$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

John Devereux wrote:
Can't remember if this has been suggested, but how about switching to a
cellphone? (Lots of people are doing this anyway).

They tend to be expensive to use by comparison with a land-line, and
there are unresolved health concerns.

Sylvia.
The solution is:
Use landline to call out for long conversations from home,
only connect phone when making a call.
Use cellphone for incoming calls, and also outgoing calls when not home.

That costs a _lot_ more money than a simple land line.
No way, if you use a prepayed cellphone.
Incoming calls are free.
...and how does one use a cell phone for dial-up access to the internet?

Many cell phones can do that. Usually through a USB connection.
Brand? Type? Cost?

 

[Brad Allen]

In article <9vwXm.36095$gd1.29445@newsfe05.iad>,
Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

" Maintaining synchronization down in that mud is a whole 'nuther
" issue, and satellite transponder bandwidth is expensive enough that
" it's very rare to see codes lower than R = 1/2.

Not everyone has to have lower codes at the same time; priority and
conditions. Conditions can be automated; priority obviously has
administration overhead that is untrivial but could be done. Start
with conditions and see if excellent priority administration is still
needed (beyond some rudimentary defaults).

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On 1/5/2010 1:40 PM, Brad Allen wrote:

In article<9vwXm.36095$gd1.29445@newsfe05.iad>,
Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

" Maintaining synchronization down in that mud is a whole 'nuther
" issue, and satellite transponder bandwidth is expensive enough that
" it's very rare to see codes lower than R = 1/2.

Not everyone has to have lower codes at the same time; priority and
conditions. Conditions can be automated; priority obviously has
administration overhead that is untrivial but could be done. Start
with conditions and see if excellent priority administration is still
needed (beyond some rudimentary defaults).

It sounds to me like you're confusing link budget and QoS.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

 

[krw]

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:11:29 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:17:51 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:41:15 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
tK2dnc-jN77L7KHWnZ2dnUVZ_vRi4p2d@posted.localnet>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:20:29 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
00b713ea$0$17161$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

John Devereux wrote:
Can't remember if this has been suggested, but how about switching to a
cellphone? (Lots of people are doing this anyway).

They tend to be expensive to use by comparison with a land-line, and
there are unresolved health concerns.

Sylvia.
The solution is:
Use landline to call out for long conversations from home,
only connect phone when making a call.
Use cellphone for incoming calls, and also outgoing calls when not home.

That costs a _lot_ more money than a simple land line.
No way, if you use a prepayed cellphone.
Incoming calls are free.
...and how does one use a cell phone for dial-up access to the internet?

Many cell phones can do that. Usually through a USB connection.
Brand? Type? Cost?

Mine also has a USB data cable used for a "modem" connection. I
believe VZW locked it out like everything else on the phone, though.

 

[JosephKK]

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:11:29 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:17:51 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:41:15 -0800) it happened Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
tK2dnc-jN77L7KHWnZ2dnUVZ_vRi4p2d@posted.localnet>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:20:29 +1100) it happened Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
00b713ea$0$17161$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

John Devereux wrote:
Can't remember if this has been suggested, but how about switching to a
cellphone? (Lots of people are doing this anyway).

They tend to be expensive to use by comparison with a land-line, and
there are unresolved health concerns.

Sylvia.
The solution is:
Use landline to call out for long conversations from home,
only connect phone when making a call.
Use cellphone for incoming calls, and also outgoing calls when not home.

That costs a _lot_ more money than a simple land line.
No way, if you use a prepayed cellphone.
Incoming calls are free.
...and how does one use a cell phone for dial-up access to the internet?

Many cell phones can do that. Usually through a USB connection.
Brand? Type? Cost?

This search string will help you get going:

"3G wireless modem"

Without the quotes. Number 1 hit and a good primer is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G

Enjoy.