"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:

> Worse with voicemail is people blather on and on instead of getting
> to the point and RUSH thru the most important pieces of information:
> their name and phone number. Many times at work I've had to replay a
> voicemail several times to attempt to decipher what someone's phone
> number is.

You guys have strange technologies. I get the number and usually the
name from my devices and if someone disabled caller id and isn't
someone I know, I usually don't have to bother returning the call.

"Peter Bruells" <usernet@rogue.de> wrote in message
news:m2y7br3upo.fsf@rogue.de...
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Worse with voicemail is people blather on and on instead of getting
>> to the point and RUSH thru the most important pieces of information:
>> their name and phone number. Many times at work I've had to replay a
>> voicemail several times to attempt to decipher what someone's phone
>> number is.
>
> You guys have strange technologies. I get the number and usually the
> name from my devices and if someone disabled caller id and isn't
> someone I know, I usually don't have to bother returning the call.

And if you're at WORK ...?

-- Ken from Chicago

"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:

> "Peter Bruells" <usernet@rogue.de> wrote in message
> news:m2y7br3upo.fsf@rogue.de...
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> Worse with voicemail is people blather on and on instead of getting
>>> to the point and RUSH thru the most important pieces of information:
>>> their name and phone number. Many times at work I've had to replay a
>>> voicemail several times to attempt to decipher what someone's phone
>>> number is.
>>
>> You guys have strange technologies. I get the number and usually the
>> name from my devices and if someone disabled caller id and isn't
>> someone I know, I usually don't have to bother returning the call.
>
> And if you're at WORK ...?

The same - I'm freelance. I can't remember a single work-related call
with supressed caller-id during the last years. Not a single one. Not
coutinging illegal phone solicitations.

On 2007-12-19 08:07:03 -0800, Peter Bruells <usernet@rogue.de> said:

> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> And if you're at WORK ...?
>
> The same - I'm freelance. I can't remember a single work-related call
> with supressed caller-id during the last years. Not a single one. Not
> coutinging illegal phone solicitations.

I'm freelance as well, but for some reason I've never cared enough to
understand, caller-ID doesn't work with calls from either Marvel Comics
or DC Comics.

If it comes up "Unknown Number" or blank, I can usually be pretty sure
it's an editor in New York.

kdb

Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> writes:

> On 2007-12-19 08:07:03 -0800, Peter Bruells <usernet@rogue.de> said:
>
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> And if you're at WORK ...?
>>
>> The same - I'm freelance. I can't remember a single work-related call
>> with supressed caller-id during the last years. Not a single one. Not
>> coutinging illegal phone solicitations.
>
> I'm freelance as well, but for some reason I've never cared enough to
> understand, caller-ID doesn't work with calls from either Marvel
> Comics or DC Comics.

They probably supress caller-id.

> If it comes up "Unknown Number" or blank, I can usually be pretty
> sure it's an editor in New York.

Well, a nagative positive then, If it works you you... Personally, I'm
glad that everyone I do business with has caller-id set up correctly,
i.e. it at least gives me their main number. (I can understandq
companies not wanting to publish extensions.)

"Kurt Busiek" <kurt@busiek.comics> wrote in message
news:2007121909042516807-kurt@busiekcomics...
> On 2007-12-19 08:07:03 -0800, Peter Bruells <usernet@rogue.de> said:
>
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> And if you're at WORK ...?
>>
>> The same - I'm freelance. I can't remember a single work-related
>> call
>> with supressed caller-id during the last years. Not a single one.
>> Not
>> coutinging illegal phone solicitations.
>
> I'm freelance as well, but for some reason I've never cared enough
> to understand, caller-ID doesn't work with calls from either Marvel
> Comics or DC Comics.

They all have secret identities.

On 2007-12-19 09:14:42 -0800, Peter Bruells <usernet@rogue.de> said:

> Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> writes:
>
>> On 2007-12-19 08:07:03 -0800, Peter Bruells <usernet@rogue.de> said:
>>
>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> And if you're at WORK ...?
>>>
>>> The same - I'm freelance. I can't remember a single work-related call
>>> with supressed caller-id during the last years. Not a single one. Not
>>> coutinging illegal phone solicitations.
>>
>> I'm freelance as well, but for some reason I've never cared enough to
>> understand, caller-ID doesn't work with calls from either Marvel
>> Comics or DC Comics.
>
> They probably supress caller-id.

I can't imagine why.

I mean, I can see why editors might want to do it, if they felt it
would keep freelancers who were late on deadlines from screening their
calls, but editors wouldn't be consulted in that sort of thing. I
could see why DC might have it done as a spillover from being owned by
Warner Bros., but Marvel's not in that situation.

But then, I can't say I care all that much; unwanted phone calls aren't
really a big problem for me. If I did have a reason to screen calls,
I'd probably care.

kdb

Mike Schilling wrote:
> "Kurt Busiek" <kurt@busiek.comics> wrote in message
> news:2007121909042516807-kurt@busiekcomics...
>> On 2007-12-19 08:07:03 -0800, Peter Bruells <usernet@rogue.de> said:
>>
>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> And if you're at WORK ...?
>>> The same - I'm freelance. I can't remember a single work-related
>>> call
>>> with supressed caller-id during the last years. Not a single one.
>>> Not
>>> coutinging illegal phone solicitations.
>> I'm freelance as well, but for some reason I've never cared enough
>> to understand, caller-ID doesn't work with calls from either Marvel
>> Comics or DC Comics.
>
> They all have secret identities.
>
>

Well, that's funnier than my idea that they didn't set up their PBX
correctly.

Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> writes:

> On 2007-12-19 09:14:42 -0800, Peter Bruells <usernet@rogue.de> said:
>
>> Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> writes:
>>
>>> On 2007-12-19 08:07:03 -0800, Peter Bruells <usernet@rogue.de> said:
>>>
>>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> And if you're at WORK ...?
>>>>
>>>> The same - I'm freelance. I can't remember a single work-related call
>>>> with supressed caller-id during the last years. Not a single one. Not
>>>> coutinging illegal phone solicitations.
>>>
>>> I'm freelance as well, but for some reason I've never cared enough to
>>> understand, caller-ID doesn't work with calls from either Marvel
>>> Comics or DC Comics.
>>
>> They probably supress caller-id.
>
> I can't imagine why.

It could be that they still have an old contract - over here old
numbers don't get caller-id enabled without the customer's okay. Or
it's just company policy for some weird arcane reason.

After all, all modern phone systems have caller-id as a main features,
it's deeply inbuilt into the system, because it tells it how to
route. The "suppress caller-id flag" just tells the last switch - the
one the called person used - not to pass the id along.

"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:
> Worse with voicemail is people blather on and on instead of getting
> to the point and RUSH thru the most important pieces of information:
> their name and phone number. Many times at work I've had to replay
> a voicemail several times to attempt to decipher what someone's
> phone number is.

There seem to be a great many callers who never heard of answering
machines. More than half the messages on mine consist of something
like, "Hello? Hello? Mr. Lynch? Hello?" followed by an identical
call an hour later.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
: There seem to be a great many callers who never heard of answering
: machines. More than half the messages on mine consist of something
: like, "Hello? Hello? Mr. Lynch? Hello?" followed by an identical
: call an hour later.

Or, they've heard that many people listen to the incoming messages.
Of course in that case, presumably they make a better plea for you to
pick up than just "hello hello".


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:04:25 -0800, Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics>
wrote:

>I'm freelance as well, but for some reason I've never cared enough to
>understand, caller-ID doesn't work with calls from either Marvel Comics
>or DC Comics.
>
>If it comes up "Unknown Number" or blank, I can usually be pretty sure
>it's an editor in New York.

When my daughter-in-law had my first grandson, my son called her
parents from the hospital phone. But the pbx caused it to display on
their phone as "Unknown Number", so they didn't know about the baby
until way later. I was at the hospital though.

On 19 Dec 2007 20:05:30 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>There seem to be a great many callers who never heard of answering
>machines. More than half the messages on mine consist of something
>like, "Hello? Hello? Mr. Lynch? Hello?" followed by an identical
>call an hour later.

I suspect most of these are people who believe phone messages are
rude. Although some have had experience with people not getting
around to answering voice mail.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:09:29 GMT, throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

>Or, they've heard that many people listen to the incoming messages.
>Of course in that case, presumably they make a better plea for you to
>pick up than just "hello hello".

Obviously people thinking answering machines are for the rude are
sometimes right.

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> Obviously people thinking answering machines are for the rude are
> sometimes right.

I wouldn't have gotten one except for the extreme rudeness and
persistence of the telemarketing industry. My time does not belong to
marketers -- unless they want to hire me for mutually agreeable wages.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> There seem to be a great many callers who never heard of answering
>> machines. More than half the messages on mine consist of something
>> like, "Hello? Hello? Mr. Lynch? Hello?" followed by an identical
>> call an hour later.

> I suspect most of these are people who believe phone messages
> are rude.

And they're less rude if they leave a useless one?

> Although some have had experience with people not getting around to
> answering voice mail.

And not leaving their name or phone number or affiliation is supposed
to increase the odds of my calling them back?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote in
news:ilpjm35j5f7koasrdbi03nfcs3keeut3pn@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:09:29 GMT, throopw@sheol.org (Wayne
> Throop) wrote:

>>Or, they've heard that many people listen to the incoming
>>messages. Of course in that case, presumably they make a better
>>plea for you to pick up than just "hello hello".

> Obviously people thinking answering machines are for the rude
> are sometimes right.

Answering machines can be useful for screening out rude callers, yes.

Mike

Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>>"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>>>There seem to be a great many callers who never heard of answering
>>>machines. More than half the messages on mine consist of something
>>>like, "Hello? Hello? Mr. Lynch? Hello?" followed by an identical
>>>call an hour later.
>>
>
>>I suspect most of these are people who believe phone messages
>>are rude.
>
>
> And they're less rude if they leave a useless one?

Many people leave their answering machines on, and answer the phone
after they hear who's on the line. If it's one of the auto-spam calls,
they don't answer. So some callers will basically just say, hello, hi,
if you're there pick up... okay, you're not there.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:f1mjm392dnsck4t0dvs6oj34cm0g89f2cn@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:04:25 -0800, Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm freelance as well, but for some reason I've never cared enough to
>>understand, caller-ID doesn't work with calls from either Marvel Comics
>>or DC Comics.
>>
>>If it comes up "Unknown Number" or blank, I can usually be pretty sure
>>it's an editor in New York.
>
> When my daughter-in-law had my first grandson, my son called her
> parents from the hospital phone. But the pbx caused it to display on
> their phone as "Unknown Number", so they didn't know about the baby
> until way later. I was at the hospital though.

They didn't leave a voicemail?

-- Ken from Chicago

Wayne Throop wrote:

> : "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
> : There seem to be a great many callers who never heard of answering
> : machines. More than half the messages on mine consist of something
> : like, "Hello? Hello? Mr. Lynch? Hello?" followed by an identical
> : call an hour later.
>
> Or, they've heard that many people listen to the incoming messages.
> Of course in that case, presumably they make a better plea for you to
> pick up than just "hello hello".

Sure, some people screen their calls. My sister is one. When I get her
machine, I state who'd calling then pause for a few seconds to see if
she'll be picking up. If not, I continue with the message.

I don't have a machine at home, to the frustration of some of my
siblings. I repeatedly point out that I prefer email, or if that's not
palatable they can leave a message at my work number.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:12:02 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:

>> When my daughter-in-law had my first grandson, my son called her
>> parents from the hospital phone. But the pbx caused it to display on
>> their phone as "Unknown Number", so they didn't know about the baby
>> until way later. I was at the hospital though.
>
>They didn't leave a voicemail?

I don't know.

The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:25:35 -0500, Sea Wasp
<seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:

> Many people leave their answering machines on, and answer the phone
>after they hear who's on the line. If it's one of the auto-spam calls,
>they don't answer. So some callers will basically just say, hello, hi,
>if you're there pick up... okay, you're not there.

Now that the only people who can spam me are those who make the rules
(governments), I don't get as much of that. If someone doesn't want
to answer the phone, then I don't need to call him unless it's work.

In article <2007121911171575249-kurt@busiekcomics>,
Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> wrote:

> On 2007-12-19 09:14:42 -0800, Peter Bruells <usernet@rogue.de> said:
>
> > Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> writes:
> >
> >> On 2007-12-19 08:07:03 -0800, Peter Bruells <usernet@rogue.de> said:
> >>
> >>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> And if you're at WORK ...?
> >>>
> >>> The same - I'm freelance. I can't remember a single work-related call
> >>> with supressed caller-id during the last years. Not a single one. Not
> >>> coutinging illegal phone solicitations.
> >>
> >> I'm freelance as well, but for some reason I've never cared enough to
> >> understand, caller-ID doesn't work with calls from either Marvel
> >> Comics or DC Comics.
> >
> > They probably supress caller-id.
>
> I can't imagine why.
>
> I mean, I can see why editors might want to do it, if they felt it
> would keep freelancers who were late on deadlines from screening their
> calls, but editors wouldn't be consulted in that sort of thing. I
> could see why DC might have it done as a spillover from being owned by
> Warner Bros., but Marvel's not in that situation.
>
> But then, I can't say I care all that much; unwanted phone calls aren't
> really a big problem for me. If I did have a reason to screen calls,
> I'd probably care.
>
> kdb

Spinning wildly off topic, I'm reading all the Iron Man I can get my
hands on gearing up well in advance for the movie. Just finished IRON
AGE #1. A fine piece of work there, sir. Thank you!

--
R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
or shut their doors in shame.

On 2007-12-20 18:11:14 -0800, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> said:

> In article <2007121911171575249-kurt@busiekcomics>,
> Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> wrote:
>
>> I mean, I can see why editors might want to do it, if they felt it
>> would keep freelancers who were late on deadlines from screening their
>> calls, but editors wouldn't be consulted in that sort of thing. I
>> could see why DC might have it done as a spillover from being owned by
>> Warner Bros., but Marvel's not in that situation.
>>
>> But then, I can't say I care all that much; unwanted phone calls aren't
>> really a big problem for me. If I did have a reason to screen calls,
>> I'd probably care.
>>
>
> Spinning wildly off topic, I'm reading all the Iron Man I can get my
> hands on gearing up well in advance for the movie. Just finished IRON
> AGE #1. A fine piece of work there, sir. Thank you!

Thanks! Glad you liked it.

kdb

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ep5mm3hdsrf2i32s4eb7sopu22a7utjl90@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:12:02 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> When my daughter-in-law had my first grandson, my son called her
>>> parents from the hospital phone. But the pbx caused it to display on
>>> their phone as "Unknown Number", so they didn't know about the baby
>>> until way later. I was at the hospital though.
>>
>>They didn't leave a voicemail?
>
> I don't know.
>
> The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
> very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
> find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
> get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.

You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.

-- Ken from Chicago

In article <sfqdned9eZOErvbanZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:ep5mm3hdsrf2i32s4eb7sopu22a7utjl90@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:12:02 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> > <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> When my daughter-in-law had my first grandson, my son called her
> >>> parents from the hospital phone. But the pbx caused it to display on
> >>> their phone as "Unknown Number", so they didn't know about the baby
> >>> until way later. I was at the hospital though.
> >>
> >>They didn't leave a voicemail?
> >
> > I don't know.
> >
> > The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
> > very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
> > find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
> > get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>
> You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
> newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago

I think the iPhone addresses that, not that I'm interested in having
AT&T service to find out.

--
R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
or shut their doors in shame.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:

>> The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
>> very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
>> find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
>> get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>
>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.

My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.

I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
phone.

: Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
: My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
: I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.

Hrm? You can have your voicemail, and blinkenlights too. In the US,
voicemail usually interacts with caller-ID protocols, so a properly
configured phone can show a blinkenlight if you have voice mail waiting.

Um. I think. I don't use voicemail (except on cellphone), but
I have a caller-ID enabled multi-line phone, and one of the lines is so
I can pick up for the general house phone. And *that* account has
voicemail. So I've seen the "N messages waiting" display when pointing
the phone at that line.

And IP phones do it. So I imagine Vonage phones do it.

But I digress; what I really wanted to say was:

: I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
: up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
: phone.

I use screening for the initial friend-or-foe identification. It's
psychologically easier for me to pick up friends than hang up on foes.
Plus, of course, many sorts of foes hang up when they hear the computer
voice answer, so the IFF task is very easy and I need neither pick up
nor hang up. It's win-win. I'm not precisely sure what the two wins
are, but there's *some* sort of winnage going on in there somewhere.
This is, of course, a flaw in my character; laziness and excessive
hang-up-o-phobia. But hey, with the technological crutch of screening,
it's a hardly noticeable flaw.


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
> >> very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
> >> find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
> >> get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
> >
> >You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
> >newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>
> My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
> I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
>
> I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
> up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
> phone.

These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
people speaking strange languages?

--
R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
or shut their doors in shame.

Anim8rFSK wrote:

> In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>>>
>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>>
>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
>>
>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
>>phone.
>
>
> These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
> know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
> endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
> people speaking strange languages?
>


Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.

Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
back. They call me every 10 days or so.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:43:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
>know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
>endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
>people speaking strange languages?

The no-call list seemed to work here. Political spam is legal (after
all, politicians passed the law). Bogus Fireman charity calls are a
pain, but they're mostly automated these days - easy to hang up on.

I can't remember the last time I got a wrong number.

If I stop to read the number before picking up the phone, I'm making
my friends wait if they call. And it's just as quick to pick up the
phone as it is to read the voice mail.

What I hate is having to go through voice mail. That's a lot of
work, especially if it is a valid call and the number to call back is
mumbled. If I pick up a spam call and hang up, my work load is much
less than if it is left as voice mail.

"peachy ashie passion" <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02...
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
>> In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
>> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
>>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
>>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
>>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>>>>
>>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
>>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>>>
>>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
>>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
>>>
>>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
>>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
>>>phone.
>>
>>
>> These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
>> know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
>> endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and people
>> speaking strange languages?
>>
>
>
> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
> interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
> telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.
>
> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
> back. They call me every 10 days or so.

We don't get political spam since Illinois is a "deep blue" state so the
political ads and phone calls are relatively few and far between. Dems take
the state for granted and Repubs have written it off.

-- Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago wrote:

> "peachy ashie passion" <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02...
>
>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
>>> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>>>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
>>>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
>>>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
>>>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
>>>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>>>>
>>>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
>>>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
>>>>
>>>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
>>>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
>>>>phone.
>>>
>>>
>>>These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
>>>know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
>>>endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and people
>>>speaking strange languages?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
>>interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
>>telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.
>>
>> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
>>back. They call me every 10 days or so.
>
>
> We don't get political spam since Illinois is a "deep blue" state so the
> political ads and phone calls are relatively few and far between. Dems take
> the state for granted and Repubs have written it off.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>

Ahh. We've just finished elections. As in, last week. The
November cycle was VERY heated, and then we had the special election,
and my daughter and son stopped fighting over which of them got to
answer the phone and instead started yelling "Mom! YOU get it!".

In article <a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02>,
peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> > In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
> > Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> >><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
> >>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
> >>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
> >>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
> >>>
> >>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
> >>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
> >>
> >>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
> >>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
> >>
> >>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
> >>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
> >>phone.
> >
> >
> > These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
> > know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
> > endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
> > people speaking strange languages?
> >
>
>
> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
> interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
> telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.
>
> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
> back. They call me every 10 days or so.

Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
cops calling you, but no more.

--
R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
or shut their doors in shame.

In article <va6qm3loo0cqufvjlcrqp5k2hcghujhn5s@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:43:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
> >know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
> >endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
> >people speaking strange languages?
>
> The no-call list seemed to work here.

Not here. It did for awhile, but they're back in full force. Mostly
blocked numbers so you can't report them. Tons of recorded scams. And
live scammers that will scream at you that they are in fact allowed to
call.

Political spam is legal (after
> all, politicians passed the law). Bogus Fireman charity calls are a
> pain, but they're mostly automated these days - easy to hang up on.
>
> I can't remember the last time I got a wrong number.

We get at least a half dozen every day; some days dozens (see: repeating
faxes). I'd say 45% faxes (we don't have a fax), 45% people that don't
speak English, 5% confused and/or angry people demanding to know what
number they called, and 5% that politely say 'oops wrong number' and go
away.
>
> If I stop to read the number before picking up the phone, I'm making
> my friends wait if they call. And it's just as quick to pick up the
> phone as it is to read the voice mail.
>
> What I hate is having to go through voice mail. That's a lot of
> work, especially if it is a valid call and the number to call back is
> mumbled. If I pick up a spam call and hang up, my work load is much
> less than if it is left as voice mail.

I went through the backlog of calls on my fax machine (at work)
answering system yesterday. Dozens and dozens of calls from some QWest
telemarketing scam asking word for word to talk to the person in charge
of the account and getting a BEEEEEEEP in their ear. Good fun. :)

--
R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
or shut their doors in shame.

Anim8rFSK wrote:

> In article <a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02>,
> peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
>>> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>>>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
>>>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
>>>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
>>>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
>>>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>>>>
>>>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
>>>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
>>>>
>>>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
>>>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
>>>>phone.
>>>
>>>
>>>These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
>>>know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
>>>endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
>>>people speaking strange languages?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
>>interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
>>telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.
>>
>> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
>>back. They call me every 10 days or so.
>
>
> Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
> lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
> cops calling you, but no more.
>

Yeah. They say that part, actually. But I don't give them money,
either.

In article <EPcbj.1281$nh7.153@trnddc01>,
peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> > In article <a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02>,
> > peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Anim8rFSK wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
> >>> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> >>>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
> >>>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
> >>>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
> >>>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
> >>>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
> >>>>
> >>>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
> >>>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
> >>>>
> >>>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
> >>>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
> >>>>phone.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
> >>>know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
> >>>endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
> >>>people speaking strange languages?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
> >>interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
> >>telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.
> >>
> >> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
> >>back. They call me every 10 days or so.
> >
> >
> > Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
> > lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
> > cops calling you, but no more.
> >
>
> Yeah. They say that part, actually. But I don't give them money,
> either.

They try and sneak it buy here. "This is Peachy with the police
department" or "This is Peachy on behalf of the police department"

Yeah, right.

--
R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
or shut their doors in shame.

"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-980BC9.00520623122007@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <EPcbj.1281$nh7.153@trnddc01>,
> peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>> > In article <a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02>,
>> > peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
>> >>> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>> >>>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
>> >>>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
>> >>>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
>> >>>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way
>> >>>>>the
>> >>>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
>> >>>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
>> >>>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
>> >>>>phone.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
>> >>>know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
>> >>>endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
>> >>>people speaking strange languages?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
>> >>interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
>> >>telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.
>> >>
>> >> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
>> >>back. They call me every 10 days or so.
>> >
>> >
>> > Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
>> > lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
>> > cops calling you, but no more.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah. They say that part, actually. But I don't give them money,
>> either.
>
> They try and sneak it buy here. "This is Peachy with the police
> department" or "This is Peachy on behalf of the police department"
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> --
> R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
> The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
> or shut their doors in shame.

But President Peachy of the 3rd Nigerian Bank NEEDED my bank account, social
security and credit card numbers to transfer money from the war torn strife.

-- Ken from Chicago

Anim8rFSK wrote:

> In article <EPcbj.1281$nh7.153@trnddc01>,
> peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02>,
>>> peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
>>>>>Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>>>>>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
>>>>>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
>>>>>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
>>>>>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way the
>>>>>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
>>>>>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
>>>>>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
>>>>>>phone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
>>>>>know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
>>>>>endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
>>>>>people speaking strange languages?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
>>>>interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
>>>>telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.
>>>>
>>>> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
>>>>back. They call me every 10 days or so.
>>>
>>>
>>>Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
>>>lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
>>>cops calling you, but no more.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. They say that part, actually. But I don't give them money,
>>either.
>
>
> They try and sneak it buy here. "This is Peachy with the police
> department" or "This is Peachy on behalf of the police department"
>
> Yeah, right.
>


Oh yeah, that they do. "on behalf of" All the time.

pffft!

Ken from Chicago wrote:

> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ANIM8Rfsk-980BC9.00520623122007@news.west.cox.net...
>
>>In article <EPcbj.1281$nh7.153@trnddc01>,
>>peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02>,
>>>> peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>>>>>>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the phone
>>>>>>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver to
>>>>>>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus to
>>>>>>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a way
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable, but
>>>>>>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will hang
>>>>>>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
>>>>>>>phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people you
>>>>>>know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls? The
>>>>>>endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
>>>>>>people speaking strange languages?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
>>>>>interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
>>>>>telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
>>>>>back. They call me every 10 days or so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
>>>>lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
>>>>cops calling you, but no more.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah. They say that part, actually. But I don't give them money,
>>>either.
>>
>>They try and sneak it buy here. "This is Peachy with the police
>>department" or "This is Peachy on behalf of the police department"
>>
>>Yeah, right.
>>
>>--
>>R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
>>The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
>>or shut their doors in shame.
>
>
> But President Peachy of the 3rd Nigerian Bank NEEDED my bank account, social
> security and credit card numbers to transfer money from the war torn strife.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>


Yes, I'm sure she did.

So does this one, so do send that info right along dear.

"peachy ashie passion" <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RNvbj.4017$6V3.512@trnddc08...
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:ANIM8Rfsk-980BC9.00520623122007@news.west.cox.net...
>>
>>>In article <EPcbj.1281$nh7.153@trnddc01>,
>>>peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02>,
>>>>> peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>>>>>>>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the
>>>>>>>>>>phone
>>>>>>>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a
>>>>>>>>>way the
>>>>>>>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable,
>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will
>>>>>>>>hang
>>>>>>>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
>>>>>>>>phone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls?
>>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
>>>>>>>people speaking strange languages?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
>>>>>>interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
>>>>>>telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
>>>>>>back. They call me every 10 days or so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
>>>>>lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
>>>>>cops calling you, but no more.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. They say that part, actually. But I don't give them money,
>>>>either.
>>>
>>>They try and sneak it buy here. "This is Peachy with the police
>>>department" or "This is Peachy on behalf of the police department"
>>>
>>>Yeah, right.
>>>
>>>--
>>>R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
>>>The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
>>>or shut their doors in shame.
>>
>>
>> But President Peachy of the 3rd Nigerian Bank NEEDED my bank account,
>> social security and credit card numbers to transfer money from the war
>> torn strife.
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
> Yes, I'm sure she did.
>
> So does this one, so do send that info right along dear.

Oh, this takes too long, here I'll post them:
--Bank account # 3141-5926
--Social Security # 271-82-8182
--Visa (Gold) #: 1618 0339 8874 9894

-- Numerical Ken from Chicago

Ken from Chicago <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> But President Peachy of the 3rd Nigerian Bank NEEDED my bank account,
>>> social security and credit card numbers to transfer money from the war
>>> torn strife.
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure she did.
>>
>> So does this one, so do send that info right along dear.
>
>Oh, this takes too long, here I'll post them:
>--Bank account # 3141-5926
>--Social Security # 271-82-8182
>--Visa (Gold) #: 1618 0339 8874 9894
>
>-- Numerical Ken from Chicago

Pssst: it's a trick! Bank accounts have ten digits, and VISAs start with a 4!

Dave "and that SSN makes me go eeeeee..." DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

David DeLaney wrote:
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>But President Peachy of the 3rd Nigerian Bank NEEDED my bank account,
>>>>social security and credit card numbers to transfer money from the war
>>>>torn strife.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm sure she did.
>>>
>>> So does this one, so do send that info right along dear.
>>
>>Oh, this takes too long, here I'll post them:
>>--Bank account # 3141-5926
>>--Social Security # 271-82-8182
>>--Visa (Gold) #: 1618 0339 8874 9894
>>
>>-- Numerical Ken from Chicago
>
>
> Pssst: it's a trick! Bank accounts have ten digits, and VISAs start with a 4!
>
> Dave "and that SSN makes me go eeeeee..." DeLaney


ROFL - yes, totally a trick.

Besides he posted them online while I was at work, so the bank
account woulda been empty by the time I got home anyway

In article <yM-dnZWpypAsNfPanZ2dnUVZ_uyinZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:

> "peachy ashie passion" <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:RNvbj.4017$6V3.512@trnddc08...
> > Ken from Chicago wrote:
> >
> >> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:ANIM8Rfsk-980BC9.00520623122007@news.west.cox.net...
> >>
> >>>In article <EPcbj.1281$nh7.153@trnddc01>,
> >>>peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02>,
> >>>>> peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
> >>>>>>>Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> >>>>>>>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the
> >>>>>>>>>>phone
> >>>>>>>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the receiver
> >>>>>>>>>>to
> >>>>>>>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of menus
> >>>>>>>>>>to
> >>>>>>>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a
> >>>>>>>>>way the
> >>>>>>>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable,
> >>>>>>>>but
> >>>>>>>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will
> >>>>>>>>hang
> >>>>>>>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
> >>>>>>>>phone.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people
> >>>>>>>you
> >>>>>>>know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls?
> >>>>>>>The
> >>>>>>>endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
> >>>>>>>people speaking strange languages?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have much
> >>>>>>interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
> >>>>>>telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship with.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few years
> >>>>>>back. They call me every 10 days or so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
> >>>>>lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
> >>>>>cops calling you, but no more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah. They say that part, actually. But I don't give them money,
> >>>>either.
> >>>
> >>>They try and sneak it buy here. "This is Peachy with the police
> >>>department" or "This is Peachy on behalf of the police department"
> >>>
> >>>Yeah, right.
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
> >>>The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
> >>>or shut their doors in shame.
> >>
> >>
> >> But President Peachy of the 3rd Nigerian Bank NEEDED my bank account,
> >> social security and credit card numbers to transfer money from the war
> >> torn strife.
> >>
> >> -- Ken from Chicago
> >
> >
> > Yes, I'm sure she did.
> >
> > So does this one, so do send that info right along dear.
>
> Oh, this takes too long, here I'll post them:
> --Bank account # 3141-5926

1300 google hits

> --Social Security # 271-82-8182

2 hits on google. The first is:
271 - 82 - 8 182 = -7 993
the second is:
EIN 31-41592654 SSN 271-82-8182. Complete the necessary tax forms for
Pastor Kowsnofski

> --Visa (Gold) #: 1618 0339 8874 9894

13,000 google hits in strange metric languages

.... architettonico di una formula matematica, lequazione, la cui
soluzione positiva, fornisce il valore di: 1618 0339 8874 9894 8482
(numero aureo)

--
R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
or shut their doors in shame.

"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-FE5376.20480923122007@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <yM-dnZWpypAsNfPanZ2dnUVZ_uyinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "peachy ashie passion" <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:RNvbj.4017$6V3.512@trnddc08...
>> > Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:ANIM8Rfsk-980BC9.00520623122007@news.west.cox.net...
>> >>
>> >>>In article <EPcbj.1281$nh7.153@trnddc01>,
>> >>>peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>In article <a0_aj.14197$gF4.12994@trnddc02>,
>> >>>>> peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>In article <v9fom3pt27ihe16qf5k3mafvcjj2lpg5e1@4ax.com>,
>> >>>>>>>Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:29:29 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>> >>>>>>>><kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>The new style of voicemail is a pain though - I don't use the
>> >>>>>>>>>>phone
>> >>>>>>>>>>very often and I don't want to periodically pick up the
>> >>>>>>>>>>receiver
>> >>>>>>>>>>to
>> >>>>>>>>>>find out if I have voice mail - then go through a bunch of
>> >>>>>>>>>>menus
>> >>>>>>>>>>to
>> >>>>>>>>>>get it. E-mail's a quicker way to reach me.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>You don't have an answer machine? It's great for screening--in a
>> >>>>>>>>>way the
>> >>>>>>>>>newfangled voicemail has yet to duplicate.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>My wife chose the service. Answering machines weren't reliable,
>> >>>>>>>>but
>> >>>>>>>>I did like the fact that they had a blinking light showing me.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>I will not screen. If the phone call is political spam, I will
>> >>>>>>>>hang
>> >>>>>>>>up, otherwise it is someone I know, and is worth my answering the
>> >>>>>>>>phone.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>These are your only two types of calls? Political spam and people
>> >>>>>>>you
>> >>>>>>>know? What about the endless telemarketers making illegal calls?
>> >>>>>>>The
>> >>>>>>>endless 'charities' that are scams? The endless wrong numbers and
>> >>>>>>>people speaking strange languages?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Oh yeah. I get political spam, people I know and don't have
>> >>>>>> much
>> >>>>>>interest in talking to right this minute, charities and a ton of
>> >>>>>>telemarketing from folks I already have a business relationship
>> >>>>>>with.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Damn ex-husband gave a sherriff's department some money a few
>> >>>>>> years
>> >>>>>>back. They call me every 10 days or so.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
>> >>>>>lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were
>> >>>>>actual
>> >>>>>cops calling you, but no more.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yeah. They say that part, actually. But I don't give them
>> >>>> money,
>> >>>>either.
>> >>>
>> >>>They try and sneak it buy here. "This is Peachy with the police
>> >>>department" or "This is Peachy on behalf of the police department"
>> >>>
>> >>>Yeah, right.
>> >>>
>> >>>--
>> >>>R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
>> >>>The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
>> >>>or shut their doors in shame.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But President Peachy of the 3rd Nigerian Bank NEEDED my bank account,
>> >> social security and credit card numbers to transfer money from the war
>> >> torn strife.
>> >>
>> >> -- Ken from Chicago
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, I'm sure she did.
>> >
>> > So does this one, so do send that info right along dear.
>>
>> Oh, this takes too long, here I'll post them:
>> --Bank account # 3141-5926
>
> 1300 google hits
>
>> --Social Security # 271-82-8182
>
> 2 hits on google. The first is:
> 271 - 82 - 8 182 = -7 993
> the second is:
> EIN 31-41592654 SSN 271-82-8182. Complete the necessary tax forms for
> Pastor Kowsnofski
>
>> --Visa (Gold) #: 1618 0339 8874 9894
>
> 13,000 google hits in strange metric languages
>
> ... architettonico di una formula matematica, lequazione, la cui
> soluzione positiva, fornisce il valore di: 1618 0339 8874 9894 8482
> (numero aureo)

Sometimes you can be too smart for your own good and inadvertantly make
something really complex and difficult when it's really simple and easy as
pie.

-- Simple Ken from Chicago

Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> writes:
>Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
>lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
>cops calling you, but no more.

Yep, almost all, if not all, policemen's charity calls are in fact scams,
with less than 5% of the money collected going anything other than in the
marketer's pockets.

Still to this day though, policemen's charity calls are the most obnoxious
on earth. Any other charity you can say "**** off" and hang up, and they'll
move on. The police guys, should you do that, will generally call back,
sometimes multiple times. It seems the breed of scum that pulls this scam
likes to pretend that the police are on their side. Far from it - if you
can get their info, real police LOVE to bust these idiots. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> writes:
>The no-call list seemed to work here. Political spam is legal (after
>all, politicians passed the law). Bogus Fireman charity calls are a
>pain, but they're mostly automated these days - easy to hang up on.

But why even go to the phone? Why are you letting them waste enough of your
time to pick up and then hang up. It's 2007, learn to screen. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> writes:
>Not here. It did for awhile, but they're back in full force. Mostly
>blocked numbers so you can't report them. Tons of recorded scams. And
>live scammers that will scream at you that they are in fact allowed to
>call.

Even surveys and charities must hang up by law if you demand to be added to
their do-not-call list. Handle those the old way - get their address and
report them. It's fun! I know people who have sued them in small claims
court as well. Apparently they pay all those off.

I haven't gotten a straight-up marketing call since a week after I put my
numbers on the list - I used to get literally dozens a day. The only things
I get these days are "survey" companies and the occasional charity. The
latter, when they're charities I might actually give to, I've handled by
saying (if I felt like picking up the phone) that the ONE thing that will
stop me from contributing is getting phone solicitations. The smart ones
don't call again. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

"PV" <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:13mveamg7l77q6e@news.supernews.com...
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> writes:
>>The no-call list seemed to work here. Political spam is legal (after
>>all, politicians passed the law). Bogus Fireman charity calls are a
>>pain, but they're mostly automated these days - easy to hang up on.
>
> But why even go to the phone? Why are you letting them waste enough of
> your
> time to pick up and then hang up. It's 2007, learn to screen. *
> --
> * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
> like corkscrews.

Caller ID is your friend.

That and a low-volume ringer.

-- Ken from Chicago

PV wrote:

> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> writes:
>
>>Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
>>lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
>>cops calling you, but no more.
>
>
> Yep, almost all, if not all, policemen's charity calls are in fact scams,
> with less than 5% of the money collected going anything other than in the
> marketer's pockets.
>
> Still to this day though, policemen's charity calls are the most obnoxious
> on earth. Any other charity you can say "**** off" and hang up, and they'll
> move on. The police guys, should you do that, will generally call back,
> sometimes multiple times. It seems the breed of scum that pulls this scam
> likes to pretend that the police are on their side. Far from it - if you
> can get their info, real police LOVE to bust these idiots. *


My absolute favorite thing is this.. they start the call with "we'd
like to thank you for your donation last year and hope we can count on
your support again this year" - and I know damn good and well I didn't
donate last year.

One year they slipped up, and called to thank me for my donation to
the state police in Indiana.

In article <13mvejpaljq4r37@news.supernews.com>,
pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV) wrote:

> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> writes:
> >Not here. It did for awhile, but they're back in full force. Mostly
> >blocked numbers so you can't report them. Tons of recorded scams. And
> >live scammers that will scream at you that they are in fact allowed to
> >call.
>
> Even surveys and charities must hang up by law if you demand to be added to
> their do-not-call list. Handle those the old way - get their address and
> report them. It's fun! I know people who have sued them in small claims
> court as well. Apparently they pay all those off.

Unfortunately they've taken to blocking their calls. And no, I can't
just reject blocked calls. Makes it tough to report them; after all,
anybody can call anonymously and say they're from the Vader Police Fund.
>
> I haven't gotten a straight-up marketing call since a week after I put my
> numbers on the list - I used to get literally dozens a day. The only things
> I get these days are "survey" companies and the occasional charity. The
> latter, when they're charities I might actually give to, I've handled by
> saying (if I felt like picking up the phone) that the ONE thing that will
> stop me from contributing is getting phone solicitations. The smart ones
> don't call again. *

It dropped off seriously for a LONG time after the list went in, but
it's ramped up again. Probably not nearly as bad as when it was
literally dozens a day, like you, but still bad. The "Upward Foundation
Morisseti school scammers used to call 3, 4 times a day. Now I read the
riot act to a supervisor and it gets me off the list for a few weeks at
a time.

--
Jitterbug phones:
The bill may be completely wrong every month
but at least the service doesn't work
At all.

In article <aZQbj.4339$1q4.2631@trnddc06>,
peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:

> PV wrote:
>
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> writes:
> >
> >>Argh. You do realize they aren't the cops? They're telemarketers,
> >>lying to make you think they're the cops. Decades ago they were actual
> >>cops calling you, but no more.
> >
> >
> > Yep, almost all, if not all, policemen's charity calls are in fact scams,
> > with less than 5% of the money collected going anything other than in the
> > marketer's pockets.
> >
> > Still to this day though, policemen's charity calls are the most obnoxious
> > on earth. Any other charity you can say "**** off" and hang up, and they'll
> > move on. The police guys, should you do that, will generally call back,
> > sometimes multiple times. It seems the breed of scum that pulls this scam
> > likes to pretend that the police are on their side. Far from it - if you
> > can get their info, real police LOVE to bust these idiots. *
>
>
> My absolute favorite thing is this.. they start the call with "we'd
> like to thank you for your donation last year and hope we can count on
> your support again this year" - and I know damn good and well I didn't
> donate last year.

"I know you've got friends on the force, and"

which is where you say

"Yes, yes I do, and they told me to NEVER give you money"
>
> One year they slipped up, and called to thank me for my donation to
> the state police in Indiana.

--
Jitterbug phones:
The bill may be completely wrong every month
but at least the service doesn't work
At all.

In article <slrnfmtgkq.kna.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> But President Peachy of the 3rd Nigerian Bank NEEDED my bank account,
> >>> social security and credit card numbers to transfer money from the war
> >>> torn strife.
> >>
> >> Yes, I'm sure she did.
> >>
> >> So does this one, so do send that info right along dear.
> >
> >Oh, this takes too long, here I'll post them:
> >--Bank account # 3141-5926
> >--Social Security # 271-82-8182
> >--Visa (Gold) #: 1618 0339 8874 9894
> >
> >-- Numerical Ken from Chicago
>
> Pssst: it's a trick! Bank accounts have ten digits, and VISAs start with a 4!
>
> Dave "and that SSN makes me go eeeeee..." DeLaney

But the band account number is easy as pie. And as for the last number
fi on it aye phi.

Sea Wasp wrote:

> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
>>
>> My absolute favorite thing is this.. they start the call with "we'd
>> like to thank you for your donation last year and hope we can count on
>> your support again this year" - and I know damn good and well I didn't
>> donate last year.
>>
>> One year they slipped up, and called to thank me for my donation to
>> the state police in Indiana.
>
>
> I'd like to know how I can tell the difference. I have no objection
> -- and in fact I have willingness -- to donate money to help police and
> their families. They have a terrible job to do with nasty risks and
> constant exposure to the rottenest side of life which can't help their
> attitudes or their faith in the world.
>
> But I don't want to support scammers using that willingness, and in
> fact would like to know how to make sure that such bottom-feeding
> bastards get exactly what they deserve.
>
>

*shrug*

I'm open to any advice someone would like to give, because I don't
know either.

peachy ashie passion wrote:

>
> My absolute favorite thing is this.. they start the call with "we'd
> like to thank you for your donation last year and hope we can count on
> your support again this year" - and I know damn good and well I didn't
> donate last year.
>
> One year they slipped up, and called to thank me for my donation to
> the state police in Indiana.

I'd like to know how I can tell the difference. I have no objection
-- and in fact I have willingness -- to donate money to help police
and their families. They have a terrible job to do with nasty risks
and constant exposure to the rottenest side of life which can't help
their attitudes or their faith in the world.

But I don't want to support scammers using that willingness, and in
fact would like to know how to make sure that such bottom-feeding
bastards get exactly what they deserve.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

"peachy ashie passion" <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aPSbj.21106$GV4.8481@trnddc05...
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My absolute favorite thing is this.. they start the call with "we'd
>>> like to thank you for your donation last year and hope we can count on
>>> your support again this year" - and I know damn good and well I didn't
>>> donate last year.
>>>
>>> One year they slipped up, and called to thank me for my donation to
>>> the state police in Indiana.
>>
>>
>> I'd like to know how I can tell the difference. I have no
>> objection -- and in fact I have willingness -- to donate money to help
>> police and their families. They have a terrible job to do with nasty
>> risks and constant exposure to the rottenest side of life which can't
>> help their attitudes or their faith in the world.
>>
>> But I don't want to support scammers using that willingness, and in
>> fact would like to know how to make sure that such bottom-feeding
>> bastards get exactly what they deserve.
>>
>>
>
> *shrug*
>
> I'm open to any advice someone would like to give, because I don't know
> either.

Asking for their charitable registration number [for claiming the tax
deduction] usually causes the fraudsters to hang up.

"pullo" <pullo004@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fkou3j$lkb$1@news.datemas.de:

>
> "peachy ashie passion" <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:aPSbj.21106$GV4.8481@trnddc05...
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>>> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My absolute favorite thing is this.. they start the call
>>>> with "we'd
>>>> like to thank you for your donation last year and hope we can
>>>> count on your support again this year" - and I know damn good
>>>> and well I didn't donate last year.
>>>>
>>>> One year they slipped up, and called to thank me for my
>>>> donation to
>>>> the state police in Indiana.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to know how I can tell the difference. I have no
>>> objection -- and in fact I have willingness -- to donate money
>>> to help police and their families. They have a terrible job to
>>> do with nasty risks and constant exposure to the rottenest
>>> side of life which can't help their attitudes or their faith
>>> in the world.
>>>
>>> But I don't want to support scammers using that
>>> willingness, and in
>>> fact would like to know how to make sure that such
>>> bottom-feeding bastards get exactly what they deserve.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> *shrug*
>>
>> I'm open to any advice someone would like to give, because I
>> don't know
>> either.
>
> Asking for their charitable registration number [for claiming
> the tax
> deduction] usually causes the fraudsters to hang up.
>
Strictly speaking, the easiest way to identify the "police
brotherhood" scams (and similar scams for firemen) is the simple
fact that they called you on the phone. Police and fire support
organizations simply *do* *not* solicit donations on the phone.
Ever. Partly because it pisses people off, but mostly because of
all the scams. I get occasional (postal) mailings from the local
police support group, and they say, in essense, "If you get a phone
call asking for money in our name, please notify your local police
becase it's a criminal scam."

(The scammers around here wouldn't hesitate to call the charity
they're imitating, and getting their registration number, to pass
it on. Criminals are stupid, they often have a low animal cunning.)

--
Terry Austin

"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump

"Walter Bushell" <proto@oanix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-114164.13145224122007@news.panix.com...
> In article <slrnfmtgkq.kna.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
>> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>> But President Peachy of the 3rd Nigerian Bank NEEDED my bank account,
>> >>> social security and credit card numbers to transfer money from the
>> >>> war
>> >>> torn strife.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I'm sure she did.
>> >>
>> >> So does this one, so do send that info right along dear.
>> >
>> >Oh, this takes too long, here I'll post them:
>> >--Bank account # 3141-5926
>> >--Social Security # 271-82-8182
>> >--Visa (Gold) #: 1618 0339 8874 9894
>> >
>> >-- Numerical Ken from Chicago
>>
>> Pssst: it's a trick! Bank accounts have ten digits, and VISAs start with
>> a 4!
>>
>> Dave "and that SSN makes me go eeeeee..." DeLaney
>
> But the band account number is easy as pie. And as for the last number
> fi on it aye phi.

FEe phi fum
I smell the blood of an Englishman.

-- Ken from Chicago

In article <476FF985.40705@sgeObviousinc.com>,
Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:

> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
> >
> > My absolute favorite thing is this.. they start the call with "we'd
> > like to thank you for your donation last year and hope we can count on
> > your support again this year" - and I know damn good and well I didn't
> > donate last year.
> >
> > One year they slipped up, and called to thank me for my donation to
> > the state police in Indiana.
>
> I'd like to know how I can tell the difference. I have no objection
> -- and in fact I have willingness -- to donate money to help police
> and their families. They have a terrible job to do with nasty risks
> and constant exposure to the rottenest side of life which can't help
> their attitudes or their faith in the world.
>
> But I don't want to support scammers using that willingness, and in
> fact would like to know how to make sure that such bottom-feeding
> bastards get exactly what they deserve.

I don't think you can tell the difference; I think anybody that calls
you for a police charity is a scammer.

--
Jitterbug phones:
The bill may be completely wrong every month
but at least the service doesn't work
At all.

Anim8rFSK wrote:

> In article <476FF985.40705@sgeObviousinc.com>,
> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>peachy ashie passion wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My absolute favorite thing is this.. they start the call with "we'd
>>>like to thank you for your donation last year and hope we can count on
>>>your support again this year" - and I know damn good and well I didn't
>>>donate last year.
>>>
>>> One year they slipped up, and called to thank me for my donation to
>>>the state police in Indiana.
>>
>> I'd like to know how I can tell the difference. I have no objection
>>-- and in fact I have willingness -- to donate money to help police
>>and their families. They have a terrible job to do with nasty risks
>>and constant exposure to the rottenest side of life which can't help
>>their attitudes or their faith in the world.
>>
>> But I don't want to support scammers using that willingness, and in
>>fact would like to know how to make sure that such bottom-feeding
>>bastards get exactly what they deserve.
>
>
> I don't think you can tell the difference; I think anybody that calls
> you for a police charity is a scammer.
>

Ahh, good.

Also, don't give to DARE. They may well be genuine, but DARE doesn't
work.

"peachy ashie passion" <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aPSbj.21106$GV4.8481@trnddc05...
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My absolute favorite thing is this.. they start the call with "we'd
>>> like to thank you for your donation last year and hope we can count on
>>> your support again this year" - and I know damn good and well I didn't
>>> donate last year.
>>>
>>> One year they slipped up, and called to thank me for my donation to
>>> the state police in Indiana.
>>
>>
>> I'd like to know how I can tell the difference. I have no
>> objection -- and in fact I have willingness -- to donate money to help
>> police and their families. They have a terrible job to do with nasty
>> risks and constant exposure to the rottenest side of life which can't
>> help their attitudes or their faith in the world.
>>
>> But I don't want to support scammers using that willingness, and in
>> fact would like to know how to make sure that such bottom-feeding
>> bastards get exactly what they deserve.
>>
>>
>
> *shrug*
>
> I'm open to any advice someone would like to give, because I don't know
> either.

It's simple, YOU call THEM. Look them up online, from trusted sources, or
maybe even from someone you know who might be a cop, and then proceed.

Tho you might want to find out how the money is SPENT. A lot of non-profits
talk about how much money was raised for a cause, but how often do they
say--or donaters ask--how the money was spent?

-- Ken from Chicago

Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> writes:
> I'd like to know how I can tell the difference. I have no objection

Easy as pie - real police charities don't telemarket. Go down to your local
station and ask to make a donation. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> writes:
>Unfortunately they've taken to blocking their calls. And no, I can't
>just reject blocked calls. Makes it tough to report them; after all,
>anybody can call anonymously and say they're from the Vader Police Fund.

This is a $22,000 per occurrence violation. Find out how to do an
"annoyance call trace" and take them to court.

>literally dozens a day, like you, but still bad. The "Upward Foundation
>Morisseti school scammers used to call 3, 4 times a day. Now I read the
>riot act to a supervisor and it gets me off the list for a few weeks at
>a time.

Also a violation - when put on a do not call list, you have to stay on it
for at least a year. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:51:18 -0000, pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV) wrote:

>>The no-call list seemed to work here. Political spam is legal (after
>>all, politicians passed the law). Bogus Fireman charity calls are a
>>pain, but they're mostly automated these days - easy to hang up on.
>
>But why even go to the phone? Why are you letting them waste enough of your
>time to pick up and then hang up. It's 2007, learn to screen. *
>--
>* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
> like corkscrews.

Picking up a phone is easier than picking up my reading glasses,
reading who calls me. It means my friends aren't waiting as long for
me to reply (Why be rude to them?). And it's worlds easier than
handling voice mail.

But I see you're point - "It's 2007, learn to be rude".

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:luc2n39oni5tae0d1a8nu990khbb0akerf@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:51:18 -0000, pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>
>>>The no-call list seemed to work here. Political spam is legal (after
>>>all, politicians passed the law). Bogus Fireman charity calls are a
>>>pain, but they're mostly automated these days - easy to hang up on.
>>
>>But why even go to the phone? Why are you letting them waste enough of
>>your
>>time to pick up and then hang up. It's 2007, learn to screen. *
>>--
>>* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
>> like corkscrews.
>
> Picking up a phone is easier than picking up my reading glasses,
> reading who calls me. It means my friends aren't waiting as long for
> me to reply (Why be rude to them?). And it's worlds easier than
> handling voice mail.
>
> But I see you're point - "It's 2007, learn to be rude".

Your friends will understand--especially if you keep glasses by the phone.

-- Ken from Chicago

peachy ashie passion wrote:
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>> I'd like to know how I can tell the difference. I have no objection
>> -- and in fact I have willingness -- to donate money to help police and
>> their families. They have a terrible job to do with nasty risks and
>> constant exposure to the rottenest side of life which can't help their
>> attitudes or their faith in the world.
>>
>> But I don't want to support scammers using that willingness, and in
>> fact would like to know how to make sure that such bottom-feeding
>> bastards get exactly what they deserve.
>
> *shrug*
>
> I'm open to any advice someone would like to give, because I don't
> know either.

Contacting your local PD yourself would seem to be a simple solution.

--
Robert Hutchinson

In article <13n24gfe546ol19@news.supernews.com>,
pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV) said:

> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> writes:
>
>> Unfortunately they've taken to blocking their calls. And no, I
>> can't just reject blocked calls. Makes it tough to report them;
>> after all, anybody can call anonymously and say they're from the
>> Vader Police Fund.

Took me a while to figure out what you meant there -- I think of a
blocked call as one that the intended recipient didn't let reach him.

> This is a $22,000 per occurrence violation.

Cool... do you know what the extact statute is?

--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>

In article <2LVbj.5542$6V3.5161@trnddc08>,
peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> > In article <476FF985.40705@sgeObviousinc.com>,
> > Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>peachy ashie passion wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> My absolute favorite thing is this.. they start the call with "we'd
> >>&g