Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 52 of 52
  1. #46
    DevilsPGD
    Guest

    Re: Who's Got Your Number?

    In message <[email protected]> Joseph
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 15:57:15 -0600, DevilsPGD <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>In message <[email protected]> "John
    >>Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>> In message <%[email protected]> "John
    >>>> Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>"wkearney99" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>> So if a friend or family member in trouble calls from a pay phone or from
    >>>>>>> a borrowed phone, they're just in deep sh*t, right? Too bad for them.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Indeed, and perhaps better for you not getting stuck bailing out some nitwit
    >>>>>> in the middle of the night.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>You might live to regret that decision if the person in trouble turned out
    >>>>>to be your daughter or girlfriend.
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps, perhaps not. Chances are it wouldn't hurt anything if you let
    >>>> the call go to voicemail and check the message.
    >>>>
    >>>> You'd still drive down to the police station and bail 'em out.
    >>>
    >>>Lot of good that would do after the person had been mugged or r a p e d
    >>>when their car stalled in a bad neighborhood.

    >>
    >>I wouldn't recommend calling me in that situation, I'd call AMA. Either
    >>way, I'd still listen to the voicemail and do the same thing I would do
    >>if I actually talked to the person (which in this case, would be to call
    >>a tow truck)

    >
    >I see. You constantly check your voicemail every 10 seconds. That
    >makes sense if that's the case. If that's not the case then evidently
    >you don't think an emergency situation calls for better then that, eh?
    >Let's hope someone you care about isn't in a dire situation that
    >requires immediate action. If it was someone you cared about you'd
    >likely sing a different tune.


    Not much checking is required, I simply set my phone to beep and/or
    vibrate (depending on which profile is active) when I receive a
    voicemail.

    Even when I have my phone set to unknown callers (numbers not in my
    phonebook) straight to voicemail, I still have my phone alert me if I
    receive a voicemail.


    --
    A gun isn't a weapon; it's a tool. Like a harpoon, or a hammer or an
    alligator. You just need more education on this subject.
    -- Homer Simpson



    See More: Who's Got Your Number?




  2. #47
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Who's Got Your Number?

    On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:53:40 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

    >FLyGTi wrote:
    >> in response to the question about what carriers still charge extra for
    >> caller ID and don't include it with the plan...there are certain nextel
    >> plans (and i can't believe nextel has the *ahem* balls to do this) that
    >> charge extra for things like caller ID and voicemail. Or atleast that
    >> was the case a few months ago...
    >>
    >> as to the rest of the discussion...i have made it known to every one of
    >> my friends/relatives that i do not answer phone numbers that i do not
    >> know. period. unless i can take a guess of who it is...i won't answer
    >> any number thats not already in my phonebook or if the number is
    >> blocked. If its important enough, they will leave a voice mail. My
    >> phone will let me know right after they've called if i have a voicemail
    >> or not...and if they leave one, i check it and then call them back.
    >> Whats wrong with that? A good number of people i know are the same
    >> way.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >Well, here's one you don't know that feels the same way. I consider
    >callers that hide their ID to be like someone ringing my doorbell, and
    >when I respond and look out the peephole to identify the pop-in, they've
    >got a thumb over the lens. I consider this behaviour to be childish,
    >unacceptable, and will likely leave the thumb stranded on the porch
    >indefinitely because I'm going to quietly go back to whatever I was
    >wasting my time with before Mr/Ms thumb showed up. Truth is, if they
    >can't exhibit better behaviour than that, they deserve to be stranded
    >with the garbage.



    I like your analogy. I had never thought of it like that before. I
    too do not like to answer my phone unless I know who is calling. I'll
    have to use your door ringer in the future.



  3. #48
    Jer
    Guest

    Re: Who's Got Your Number?

    John Richards wrote:
    > "DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >> In message <%[email protected]> "John
    >> Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "wkearney99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>>>> So if a friend or family member in trouble calls from a pay phone
    >>>>> or from
    >>>>> a borrowed phone, they're just in deep sh*t, right? Too bad for them.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Indeed, and perhaps better for you not getting stuck bailing out
    >>>> some nitwit
    >>>> in the middle of the night.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You might live to regret that decision if the person in trouble
    >>> turned out
    >>> to be your daughter or girlfriend.

    >>
    >>
    >> Perhaps, perhaps not. Chances are it wouldn't hurt anything if you let
    >> the call go to voicemail and check the message.
    >>
    >> You'd still drive down to the police station and bail 'em out.

    >
    >
    > Lot of good that would do after the person had been mugged or r a p e d
    > when their car stalled in a bad neighborhood.
    >



    So, John, you're saying that if someone desperately tries to call me for
    the purpose of soliciting my assistance, they get my vmail AND leave a
    message, but if I don't madly dash in to hear it, thereby learning of
    someone's dire circumstance and then madly dash out to retrieve them,
    but they get mugged due to my not answering my phone from unknown
    callers, their mugging is MY fault?

    I can see your Blame Transferance Mode is a bit too active.

    What if I had been in the shower? am I now expected to refrain from
    taking a shower in case someone can't remember to dial 911 or Road King?
    Am I expected to be 911 or Road King for my entire family? how about
    the entire neighbourhood? How deep into the World of What-ifs does this
    guilt trip of yours go? What if I had been doing a dozen other things
    that take me away from the phone for a few minutes on a regular basis?
    Am I now expected to drag around a phone even when I got to the ****ter?
    crawl up to the attic? take out the trash? check my mail? run next
    door for a cup of sugar? run across the street for more sugar? lest I
    miss out on someone else's dire circumstance?

    But, by golly, if someone calls me and leaves a message, that five
    minute delay of a callback causes me a lifetime of guilt because I
    didn't answer the phone the FIRST time, yessir, it's all my fault.


    I went down to the Clue Store the other day John, and I got something
    just for you - Just because a phone rings does not bestow upon it the
    constitutional right to be answered.


    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'



  4. #49
    John Richards
    Guest

    Re: Who's Got Your Number?

    "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > John Richards wrote:
    >> "DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >>> In message <%[email protected]> "John
    >>> Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "wkearney99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>
    >>>>>> So if a friend or family member in trouble calls from a pay phone
    >>>>>> or from
    >>>>>> a borrowed phone, they're just in deep sh*t, right? Too bad for them.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Indeed, and perhaps better for you not getting stuck bailing out
    >>>>> some nitwit
    >>>>> in the middle of the night.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You might live to regret that decision if the person in trouble
    >>>> turned out
    >>>> to be your daughter or girlfriend.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps, perhaps not. Chances are it wouldn't hurt anything if you let
    >>> the call go to voicemail and check the message.
    >>>
    >>> You'd still drive down to the police station and bail 'em out.

    >>
    >>
    >> Lot of good that would do after the person had been mugged or r a p e d
    >> when their car stalled in a bad neighborhood.
    >>

    >
    >
    > So, John, you're saying that if someone desperately tries to call me for
    > the purpose of soliciting my assistance, they get my vmail AND leave a
    > message, but if I don't madly dash in to hear it, thereby learning of
    > someone's dire circumstance and then madly dash out to retrieve them,
    > but they get mugged due to my not answering my phone from unknown
    > callers, their mugging is MY fault?


    I never said ANYTHING about fault.
    You're raising a red herring.

    > I can see your Blame Transferance Mode is a bit too active.
    >
    > What if I had been in the shower? am I now expected to refrain from
    > taking a shower in case someone can't remember to dial 911 or Road King?
    > Am I expected to be 911 or Road King for my entire family? how about
    > the entire neighbourhood? How deep into the World of What-ifs does this
    > guilt trip of yours go? What if I had been doing a dozen other things
    > that take me away from the phone for a few minutes on a regular basis?
    > Am I now expected to drag around a phone even when I got to the ****ter?
    > crawl up to the attic? take out the trash? check my mail? run next
    > door for a cup of sugar? run across the street for more sugar? lest I
    > miss out on someone else's dire circumstance?
    >
    > But, by golly, if someone calls me and leaves a message, that five
    > minute delay of a callback causes me a lifetime of guilt because I
    > didn't answer the phone the FIRST time, yessir, it's all my fault.


    Again, the phony "fault" thing. (No pun intended)
    No person can be expected to be available 24/7.
    All I'm saying is that it is my habit to answer calls if I'm available,
    regardless of whether I recognize the number or not. Why? Because
    both my wife and daughter have called me from borrowed or pay phones
    with urgent questions or requests for assistance. If you're comfortable
    with not answering that type of call, that's your business.

    --
    John Richards



  5. #50
    FLyGTi
    FLyGTi is offline
    Member

    Location
    Naptown, MD
    Posts
    44 - liked 1 times

    I'm going to agree with other poster's statements about not answering the phone for a number I don't recognize. Anyone that has any reason to contact me has my number and I have theirs. If someone that I know calls me from an unrecognizable number, I don't answer it either. That's why I have a voice mailbox. I'll check that and if it's someone that I need or want to talk to, I'll gladly respond at my earliest convienance. Generally my friends and family know that I don't answer the phone for unknown numbers, and expect to have to leave a Voicemail.

    I think my philosophy on answering phone calls is completely acceptable and is done more people than you would think.
    The Progression: Nokia 5165 --> Moto v120t --> Moto V60ti --> samsung s307 --> Moto V400 --> Blackberry 6280 --> Sony Z500a --> Nokia 6230 --> Nokia 6820

    I'm almost as addicted to Cell phones as i am to VW's. Almost.



  6. #51
    Jer
    Guest

    Re: Who's Got Your Number?

    John Richards wrote:
    > "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >> John Richards wrote:
    >>
    >>> "DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>>> In message <%[email protected]> "John
    >>>> Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "wkearney99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> So if a friend or family member in trouble calls from a pay phone
    >>>>>>> or from
    >>>>>>> a borrowed phone, they're just in deep sh*t, right? Too bad for
    >>>>>>> them.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Indeed, and perhaps better for you not getting stuck bailing out
    >>>>>> some nitwit
    >>>>>> in the middle of the night.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You might live to regret that decision if the person in trouble
    >>>>> turned out
    >>>>> to be your daughter or girlfriend.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps, perhaps not. Chances are it wouldn't hurt anything if you let
    >>>> the call go to voicemail and check the message.
    >>>>
    >>>> You'd still drive down to the police station and bail 'em out.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Lot of good that would do after the person had been mugged or r a p e d
    >>> when their car stalled in a bad neighborhood.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> So, John, you're saying that if someone desperately tries to call me
    >> for the purpose of soliciting my assistance, they get my vmail AND
    >> leave a message, but if I don't madly dash in to hear it, thereby
    >> learning of someone's dire circumstance and then madly dash out to
    >> retrieve them, but they get mugged due to my not answering my phone
    >> from unknown callers, their mugging is MY fault?

    >
    >
    > I never said ANYTHING about fault.
    > You're raising a red herring.


    Red herring? Hardly. You didn't have to say it in words, John, but you
    did by implication - and in my book it's the same thing.


    >
    >> I can see your Blame Transferance Mode is a bit too active.
    >>
    >> What if I had been in the shower? am I now expected to refrain from
    >> taking a shower in case someone can't remember to dial 911 or Road
    >> King? Am I expected to be 911 or Road King for my entire family? how
    >> about the entire neighbourhood? How deep into the World of What-ifs
    >> does this guilt trip of yours go? What if I had been doing a dozen
    >> other things that take me away from the phone for a few minutes on a
    >> regular basis? Am I now expected to drag around a phone even when I
    >> got to the ****ter? crawl up to the attic? take out the trash?
    >> check my mail? run next door for a cup of sugar? run across the
    >> street for more sugar? lest I miss out on someone else's dire
    >> circumstance?
    >>
    >> But, by golly, if someone calls me and leaves a message, that five
    >> minute delay of a callback causes me a lifetime of guilt because I
    >> didn't answer the phone the FIRST time, yessir, it's all my fault.

    >
    >
    > Again, the phony "fault" thing. (No pun intended)
    > No person can be expected to be available 24/7.
    > All I'm saying is that it is my habit to answer calls if I'm available,
    > regardless of whether I recognize the number or not. Why? Because
    > both my wife and daughter have called me from borrowed or pay phones
    > with urgent questions or requests for assistance. If you're comfortable
    > with not answering that type of call, that's your business.



    You're absolutely right it is my business. Tell us, John... what is
    your habit for dealing with urgent calls when you're not available?
    What does your Guilt Guide say?

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'



  7. #52
    Michael BB
    Guest

    Re: Who's Got Your Number?

    On 2 Apr 2005 08:48:03 -0800, "MrPepper11" <[email protected]> wrote:

    Thats also why they have privacy settings for your incoming calls so
    that you can block anyone that is NOT listed in your Contacts list.




    >March 21, 2005
    >Who's Got Your Number?
    >This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
    >isn't looking so good.
    >By JESSE DRUCKER
    >Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
    >
    >Getting in touch should be easier than ever these days.
    >
    >National telephone directories mean you can call 411 and get business
    >and home numbers from across the street or across the country. Finding
    >someone's e-mail address often just requires typing their name and the
    >word "email" into Google.
    >
    >But just try finding a person's cellphone number. There is no
    >centralized wireless directory in the U.S. To a majority of U.S.
    >cellphone customers, this is a good thing. They don't want to be found.
    >But for the millions of others who rely solely on their cellphones, and
    >who want their own numbers and those of others to be listed, the lack
    >of a directory is a hassle.
    >
    >A few months ago, it seemed the void was about to be filled. A group
    >hired by the cellphone industry's main trade association said 2005
    >would finally be the year cellphone numbers become available in a
    >national wireless directory.
    >
    >But now the directory is in trouble, with the biggest carriers
    >expressing reservations and only two that are still committed to
    >building a directory of their customers' numbers.
    >
    >What went wrong? Two surveys have suggested that a majority of
    >cellphone customers don't want their numbers listed. And Verizon
    >Wireless, the country's No. 2 provider with nearly 44 million
    >subscribers, has lobbied vocally against the plan, complaining both
    >that such a directory could lead to an increase in state regulations,
    >and that its customers fear their privacy would be threatened.
    >Chicago-based U.S. Cellular Corp. also opposes the plan.
    >
    >Meanwhile, Cingular Wireless, Sprint Corp. and Alltel Corp. -- who
    >serve a combined roughly 80 million customers -- say they support a
    >directory in theory. But they say they are not planning to make their
    >customers' numbers available in such a directory this year.
    >
    >In some cases, these carriers say they have been spooked by bad
    >publicity, some of which resulted from testimony before Congress last
    >September by Verizon Wireless officials and others. Appearing before a
    >committee considering regulation for a national wireless directory,
    >Verizon Wireless CEO Denny Strigl said that such a directory could
    >violate customers' privacy.
    >
    >Some of the reluctant carriers also fear the spread of regulations in
    >the wake of a law passed in California late last year requiring that
    >customers' signatures be obtained before their numbers can be put in a
    >directory.
    >
    >"We're going to continue to explore it for the longer term," says a
    >spokeswoman for Cingular, the country's biggest carrier, with 49
    >million subscribers. The company is an Atlanta-based joint venture of
    >SBC Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp.
    >
    >A spokesman for Alltel, of Little Rock, Ark., which has more than eight
    >million subscribers, says it has stopped actively participating in the
    >efforts pending the outcome of legislative and regulatory issues.
    >
    >Two other carriers are sticking with the original plan and hope to
    >offer a service by the end of this year. Nextel Communications Inc. and
    >T-Mobile USA Inc. say they have started compiling numbers of their
    >customers, who together total about 32 million. T-Mobile, a unit of
    >Germany's Deutsche Telekom AG, says it aims to launch the offering
    >during the fourth quarter. Nextel says it's a "strong possibility" it
    >will be available by the end of 2005.
    >
    >"Our customers have been asking us for it," says a Nextel spokeswoman.
    >She notes that the carrier's subscribers are largely business
    >customers, who tend to want their services listed. In December, Nextel
    >agreed to be acquired by Sprint.
    >
    >Meanwhile, officials from Qsent Inc., the Portland, Ore., company hired
    >by cellular carriers to assemble a national directory before the chill
    >set in, say they are continuing their preparations. They predict that
    >the privacy concerns will fade once cellphone customers start using the
    >service and see the benefits. "We call it wireless 411, but the reality
    >is: It's just 411," says Greg Keene, Qsent's chief privacy officer.
    >"Consumers call 411 looking either for a person or a business. If those
    >people or businesses are now in 411...that's a benefit to the
    >consumer."
    >
    >While some say the last thing wireless customers want now is a way for
    >telemarketers to infiltrate what they view as a last refuge of
    >telecommunications privacy, Mr. Keene says those fears are misplaced.
    >He says that the directory will include only numbers of people who opt
    >in, and that their numbers will not be shared with marketers. Federal
    >law prohibits telemarketing calls to cellphones, since the customers
    >have to pay for the call.
    >
    >Some alternatives exist for cellphone customers who want to list their
    >numbers. Telephone companies like Verizon Communications Inc. --
    >majority owner of Verizon Wireless -- will list your cellular number in
    >their regular directories.
    >
    >But it'll cost you: Verizon's current service requires customers to pay
    >an initial sign-up fee to list cellphone numbers or other "foreign"
    >listings, as it calls them, like 800 numbers or non-Verizon numbers.
    >Verizon's sign-up fees range from $12.32 in Rhode Island to $35.90 in
    >New York. There is a monthly fee as well, ranging from $1.05 in New
    >Jersey and Maryland to $3.05 in Rhode Island.
    >
    >But Verizon Wireless says there isn't enough demand to justify setting
    >up a wireless directory. In addition to the company's other objections,
    >"we just don't see enough of a demand for this service to put the
    >resources behind it to pursue it with the privacy safeguards we need,"
    >says Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace. "The industry doesn't need
    >to be pursuing this when it ought to be putting resources into
    >improving service."
    >
    >In one of the surveys, about a quarter of cellphone users said they
    >would like a directory if it were operated under the conditions
    >proposed by Qsent: Listed cellphone numbers would not appear in a
    >printed directory and would not be sold.
    >
    >In addition, proposed federal legislation would ban carriers from
    >including numbers unless consumers opt in. Organizations like the
    >Consumers Union and the AARP say that guarantees of such protections
    >shouldn't depend merely on the voluntary pledges of the carriers.
    >Codifying protections in legislation "shouldn't be such a big deal,"
    >says Janee Briesemeister, a senior policy analyst with Consumers Union,
    >and the campaign manager for EscapeCellHell.org, a Web site for
    >consumers.
    >
    >Although the federal effort to regulate wireless directories has
    >stalled, several states are moving on their own. In addition to the
    >restrictions implemented in California, Connecticut Attorney General
    >Richard Blumenthal has sent letters to several major cellular carriers
    >seeking to prevent the creation of a wireless directory.





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234