Does anyone know if there is central agency where we can report
commercial cold calls? I am registered for do not call but I still get
them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
political party.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On 12/10/2012 11:05 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> Does anyone know if there is central agency where we can report
> commercial cold calls? I am registered for do not call but I still get
> them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
> political party.


I have been registered with the Do Not Call registry since it first
started. I was getting an outrageous number of calls. Every once in a
while I started getting calls from people who introduces themselves
with a very Anglo name but who have strong sub continent accents. They
claim to be calling from my ISP and say they are getting a lot of virus
alerts from my computer. I have tried hanging up, calling them liars,
yelling and screaming at them. The calls kept coming. I decided to have
fun with them. I try to make conversation with them, play dumb, carry
on for as long as I can. I was able to keep them on the line for up to
10 minutes, which I figure saves some other poor saps from being
hassled. I think they gave up on my number.


In Canada, you can contact the CRTC to register complaints. I have done
it. I don't know if there were any charges laid in that case, but the
calls did stop.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I was able to keep them on the line for up to
> 10 minutes, which I figure saves some other poor saps from being
> hassled. I think they gave up on my number.

Have you asked to speak to their supervisor?
That might buy you a few more minutes.

On 12/10/2012 1:44 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> I was able to keep them on the line for up to
>> 10 minutes, which I figure saves some other poor saps from being
>> hassled. I think they gave up on my number.
>
> Have you asked to speak to their supervisor?
> That might buy you a few more minutes.
>


Hey there's a thought. I could ask him or her where they are calling
from and see if the supervisor also says Chicago.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/10/2012 1:44 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> I was able to keep them on the line for up to
>>> 10 minutes, which I figure saves some other poor saps from being
>>> hassled. I think they gave up on my number.
>>
>> Have you asked to speak to their supervisor?
>> That might buy you a few more minutes.
>>
>
>
> Hey there's a thought. I could ask him or her where they are calling from
> and see if the supervisor also says Chicago.

The first time, I kept the guy on the line for about a half an hour.
Pretended to be stupid. What? I don't understand what you are saying.
Press the "shift" key? I don't think I have one of those. Where? Under
what key? I don't think I have that either. I finally tired of that game
and began yelling at him.

On Oct 13, 12:54*am, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 12/10/2012 1:44 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> >> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >>> I was able to keep them on the line for up to
> >>> 10 minutes, which I figure saves some other poor saps from being
> >>> hassled. I think they gave up on my number.
>
> >> Have you asked to speak to their supervisor?
> >> That might buy you a few more minutes.
>
> > Hey there's a thought. *I could ask him or her where they are calling from
> > and see if the supervisor also says Chicago.
>
> The first time, I kept the guy on the line for about a half an hour.
> Pretended to be stupid. *What? *I don't understand what you are saying.
> Press the "shift" key? *I don't think I have one of those. *Where? *Under
> what key? *I don't think I have that either. *I finally tired of that game
> and began yelling at him.

Wasting their time can be fun, but I usually yell at about the C
that's an octave above middle C.

--Bryan

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> The first time, I kept the guy on the line for about a half an hour.
> Pretended to be stupid. What? I don't understand what you are saying.
> Press the "shift" key? I don't think I have one of those. Where? Under
> what key? I don't think I have that either. I finally tired of that game
> and began yelling at him.

Pretended to be stupid? There's a stretch.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/10/2012 11:05 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>> Does anyone know if there is central agency where we can report
>> commercial cold calls? I am registered for do not call but I still get
>> them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
>> political party.
>
>
> I have been registered with the Do Not Call registry since it first
> started. I was getting an outrageous number of calls. Every once in a
> while I started getting calls from people who introduces themselves with
> a very Anglo name but who have strong sub continent accents. They claim
> to be calling from my ISP and say they are getting a lot of virus alerts
> from my computer. I have tried hanging up, calling them liars, yelling
> and screaming at them. The calls kept coming. I decided to have fun with
> them. I try to make conversation with them, play dumb, carry on for as
> long as I can. I was able to keep them on the line for up to 10 minutes,
> which I figure saves some other poor saps from being hassled. I think they
> gave up on my number.
>
>
> In Canada, you can contact the CRTC to register complaints. I have done
> it. I don't know if there were any charges laid in that case, but the
> calls did stop.

I have gotten that same damned call. This is Mumbai calling from Microsoft
Windows! The guy sounds like he is calling from India but it's a Texas
phone number. I reported him to the FTC and told him as such but the ass
called back FOUR more times! I was like... Uh... You know that I LIVE in
the area where Microsoft is? And you KNOW that I KNOW people who work
there! Microsoft doesn't DO that! He still persisted. Gah!

The latest ones are calls for my husband who no longer lives here. They are
bogus sounding charities.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:50:52 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> The latest ones are calls for my husband who no longer lives here. They are
>> bogus sounding charities.
>
> I didn't think he'd be able to retire and stick around the house very
> long. You probably drive him nuts. Is it for good this time? We
> need to know this since you keep reminiscing about times when your
> husband has lived there and when he hasn't. It's hard to keep track
> anymore.

Actually we need to know this because Andy is lonely & horny.

"tert in seattle" > wrote in message
...
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:50:52 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> The latest ones are calls for my husband who no longer lives here. They
>>> are
>>> bogus sounding charities.
>>
>> I didn't think he'd be able to retire and stick around the house very
>> long. You probably drive him nuts. Is it for good this time? We
>> need to know this since you keep reminiscing about times when your
>> husband has lived there and when he hasn't. It's hard to keep track
>> anymore.
>
> Actually we need to know this because Andy is lonely & horny.

He is actually living near Andy but I am not sure they would get along. Oh
wait! Maybe you didn't mean... Well, I'm not really sure what you meant.
Is it time for breakfast yet?

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "tert in seattle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sqwertz wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:50:52 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
> >>
> >>> The latest ones are calls for my husband who no longer lives here. They
> >>> are
> >>> bogus sounding charities.
> >>
> >> I didn't think he'd be able to retire and stick around the house very
> >> long. You probably drive him nuts. Is it for good this time? We
> >> need to know this since you keep reminiscing about times when your
> >> husband has lived there and when he hasn't. It's hard to keep track
> >> anymore.
> >
> > Actually we need to know this because Andy is lonely & horny.
>
> He is actually living near Andy but I am not sure they would get along. Oh
> wait! Maybe you didn't mean... Well, I'm not really sure what you meant.
> Is it time for breakfast yet?

LOL. Andy should be posting a breakfast report any time now.

Meanwhile, time for me to take a shower and get to the grocery store for my
traditional weekly 6am grocery shopping trip.

G.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:16:20 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> "tert in seattle" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> I didn't think he'd be able to retire and stick around the house very
>>>> long. You probably drive him nuts. Is it for good this time? We
>>>> need to know this since you keep reminiscing about times when your
>>>> husband has lived there and when he hasn't. It's hard to keep track
>>>> anymore.
>>>
>>> Actually we need to know this because Andy is lonely & horny.
>>
>> He is actually living near Andy but I am not sure they would get along.
>
> Retired Army get along with Andy? No, definitely not. Andy is lazy,
> annoying, and effeminate. He's more the playmate of a Marine-type of
> guy.

Who is retired Army?

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:50:52 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> The latest ones are calls for my husband who no longer lives here. They
>> are
>> bogus sounding charities.
>
> I didn't think he'd be able to retire and stick around the house very
> long. You probably drive him nuts. Is it for good this time? We
> need to know this since you keep reminiscing about times when your
> husband has lived there and when he hasn't. It's hard to keep track
> anymore.

The job situation here is pathetic. He did get a job but the pay was so low
it wasn't even worth his while. He is working for the Coast Guard where he
used to work and doing what he used to do but as a civilian. He wanted to
do that here, but there were no openings. Purportedly this job will be
going all civilian in 2013 so he may be able to come back here then. At
least he is living close enough to his relatives that he can go visit them
on his days off.

This situation is less than ideal because he is having to pay rent there.
But there is no way we could have made our house payment and kept up with
the rest of the bills had he not done this.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> The job situation here is pathetic. He did get a job but the pay was so low
> it wasn't even worth his while. He is working for the Coast Guard where he
> used to work and doing what he used to do but as a civilian. He wanted to
> do that here, but there were no openings. Purportedly this job will be
> going all civilian in 2013 so he may be able to come back here then. At
> least he is living close enough to his relatives that he can go visit them
> on his days off.
>
> This situation is less than ideal because he is having to pay rent there.
> But there is no way we could have made our house payment and kept up with
> the rest of the bills had he not done this.

An interesting situation, to say the least but whatever works for y'all (a
little southern lingo there). Any thought of selling your house and moving
east with him? Or are you holding onto house in hopes he will be able to
come back and find work next year?

G.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> The job situation here is pathetic. He did get a job but the pay was so
>> low
>> it wasn't even worth his while. He is working for the Coast Guard where
>> he
>> used to work and doing what he used to do but as a civilian. He wanted
>> to
>> do that here, but there were no openings. Purportedly this job will be
>> going all civilian in 2013 so he may be able to come back here then. At
>> least he is living close enough to his relatives that he can go visit
>> them
>> on his days off.
>>
>> This situation is less than ideal because he is having to pay rent there.
>> But there is no way we could have made our house payment and kept up with
>> the rest of the bills had he not done this.
>
> An interesting situation, to say the least but whatever works for y'all (a
> little southern lingo there). Any thought of selling your house and
> moving
> east with him? Or are you holding onto house in hopes he will be able to
> come back and find work next year?

No, the house will not sell. For the most part, houses are just not selling
here. This house is atypical due to a weird remodel and it needs repairs.
So we could not sell or rent. Not that renting would be an option. I only
agreed to buy this house because he said he would retire here. I really did
not want to buy a house and the reasons why are now playing out just like I
knew they would. As in, we can't afford the repairs.

We also need to stay here for a variety of reasons, the biggest of which are
my elderly parents. We moved to the East coast before to help take care of
his mom. She is now in a nursing home and getting good care. We lived in
NY before and hated it. I do not want to put my daughter back in that
school system. She is doing very well in school here this year and she goes
to what I believe is one of the best dance studios in the country. I do not
want to have to take her out of either one of those either.

We are considering this move to be a temporary thing. And hopefully it will
be.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 05:13:40 -0400, Gary > wrote:

> Julie Bove wrote:
> >
> > The job situation here is pathetic. He did get a job but the pay was so low
> > it wasn't even worth his while. He is working for the Coast Guard where he
> > used to work and doing what he used to do but as a civilian. He wanted to
> > do that here, but there were no openings. Purportedly this job will be
> > going all civilian in 2013 so he may be able to come back here then. At
> > least he is living close enough to his relatives that he can go visit them
> > on his days off.
> >
> > This situation is less than ideal because he is having to pay rent there.
> > But there is no way we could have made our house payment and kept up with
> > the rest of the bills had he not done this.
>
> An interesting situation, to say the least but whatever works for y'all (a
> little southern lingo there). Any thought of selling your house and moving
> east with him? Or are you holding onto house in hopes he will be able to
> come back and find work next year?
>
She has built a life there and is used to her husband being gone for
long stretches of time, so there's no reason to move in this day and
age of the internet and video chat.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> The latest ones are calls for my husband who no longer lives here.

When did you divorce?

MotoFox wrote:
>
> I still occasionally get solicitation calls from companies overseas
> claiming to be my ISP (I'm on CenturyQworst) saying they're receiving
> "virus reports" from my Windows machine. When I do pick up, I just laugh
> at them out loud, since both boxes connected to my ADSL box are either
> Linux or BSD (why in God's name would I dare put a Winblow$ box on the
> network? I do know better!) and they couldn't be getting any information
> from my machines since both are firewalled. Damned fools.

Funny, I have a W2K box that has been on the net 24x365 for 8 years
without a single issue. The reality is that the OS is only as vulnerable
as the administrator and if you don't have idiots visiting all manner of
pirate and social networking sites Windoze rarely has issues.

"Pete C." > wrote:
> MotoFox wrote:
>>
>> I still occasionally get solicitation calls from companies overseas
>> claiming to be my ISP (I'm on CenturyQworst) saying they're receiving
>> "virus reports" from my Windows machine. When I do pick up, I just laugh
>> at them out loud, since both boxes connected to my ADSL box are either
>> Linux or BSD (why in God's name would I dare put a Winblow$ box on the
>> network? I do know better!) and they couldn't be getting any information
>> from my machines since both are firewalled. Damned fools.
>
> Funny, I have a W2K box that has been on the net 24x365 for 8 years
> without a single issue. The reality is that the OS is only as vulnerable
> as the administrator and if you don't have idiots visiting all manner of
> pirate and social networking sites Windoze rarely has issues.

I recall there was a big mess 8 years ago at work on 2k. It came the wrong
time as my boss was on my case.

Greg

James Silverton wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if there is central agency where we can report
> commercial cold calls? I am registered for do not call but I still get
> them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
> political party.
> --
> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
>
> Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

There is a "file a complaint" link right on the donotcall.gov home page.

On 2012-10-12, James Silverton > wrote:

> them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
> political party.

Live call or recording?

I get a lotta recordings, which I promptly hang up on. I heard the
govt was gonna outlaw all recording calls, but haven't seen it. I
don't think they do much against blind live calls, either. That govt
do-not-call thing was probably more to make the govt look good than to
actually do anything to stop the calls. I notice the govt passes a
lot of laws making things illegal, but provides no penalty for
disobeying said laws. IOW, toothless laws, which are useless.

nb


--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2012-10-12, James Silverton > wrote:
>
>> them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
>> political party.
>
> Live call or recording?
>
> I get a lotta recordings, which I promptly hang up on. I heard the
> govt was gonna outlaw all recording calls, but haven't seen it. I
> don't think they do much against blind live calls, either. That govt
> do-not-call thing was probably more to make the govt look good than to
> actually do anything to stop the calls. I notice the govt passes a
> lot of laws making things illegal, but provides no penalty for
> disobeying said laws. IOW, toothless laws, which are useless.
>

with recordings, if I have time, I press 1 (usually that works) and then I
get connected to a live person, presumably because I am interested in their
crapola. I then either curse at them or politely quiz them on why they are
breaking the law, depending on my mood. I might go to the "waste as much of
their time as possible" angle, as I used to do that years ago. I suppose I
could also take info and sue them, but I am not sure that is as much fun.

I do have to wonder why the DNC list seems to have ceased being effective.
It seemed to work wonders when it was first implemented.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:51:28 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> wrote:
snip
>
>I do have to wonder why the DNC list seems to have ceased being effective.
>It seemed to work wonders when it was first implemented.
>
The rule is that if you have ever had any legitimate dealings with
their company (or subs), they have a legal right to call you. If they
are a political affiliation or religious group they can call you. If
you ever respond to them, they can claim that you have done business
with them. If you respond or call the number they give you to
discontinue the calls, you have affirmed that the phone number is a
live and good one.

The most maddening one is 'Rachel'. She's a computer call and she
never gives up. She's the one who calls about better rates for your
credit cards. The proper response for a computer call is Just Hang Up.
For a live person you say "No, please don't call again, take my name
off of your list."

The folks claiming to be a tech from Microsoft is a brand new scam
that has caught so many people that the Feds have put out an alert
citizens. The people claiming to be from your phone company and
wanting to sign you up for something or check something will drive you
to curses and tears.

Basically, unless you have initiated something with a company, you
just have to hang up.

Thank you. It felt good to get that off my chest. I

Janet US

Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:51:28 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> > wrote:
> snip
> >
> >I do have to wonder why the DNC list seems to have ceased being effective.
> >It seemed to work wonders when it was first implemented.
> >
> The rule is that if you have ever had any legitimate dealings with
> their company (or subs), they have a legal right to call you. If they
> are a political affiliation or religious group they can call you. If
> you ever respond to them, they can claim that you have done business
> with them. If you respond or call the number they give you to
> discontinue the calls, you have affirmed that the phone number is a
> live and good one.
>
> The most maddening one is 'Rachel'. She's a computer call and she
> never gives up. She's the one who calls about better rates for your
> credit cards. The proper response for a computer call is Just Hang Up.
> For a live person you say "No, please don't call again, take my name
> off of your list."
>
> The folks claiming to be a tech from Microsoft is a brand new scam
> that has caught so many people that the Feds have put out an alert
> citizens. The people claiming to be from your phone company and
> wanting to sign you up for something or check something will drive you
> to curses and tears.
>
> Basically, unless you have initiated something with a company, you
> just have to hang up.
>
> Thank you. It felt good to get that off my chest. I
>
> Janet US

Much easier to not answer to begin with. If it's important they'll leave
a message. Nothing is so important it can't wait a few minutes.

On 10/12/2012 7:14 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:51:28 -0700, "Pico Rico"
>> > wrote:
>> snip
>>>
>>> I do have to wonder why the DNC list seems to have ceased being effective.
>>> It seemed to work wonders when it was first implemented.
>>>

I wonder too.

>> The rule is that if you have ever had any legitimate dealings with
>> their company (or subs), they have a legal right to call you. If they
>> are a political affiliation or religious group they can call you. If
>> you ever respond to them, they can claim that you have done business
>> with them. If you respond or call the number they give you to
>> discontinue the calls, you have affirmed that the phone number is a
>> live and good one.

You can still tell those who you've done business with, charities, etc,
to take you off of their lists. Politicians, no idea. Nothing works
with them and most of them are recordings, too.

>>
>> The most maddening one is 'Rachel'. She's a computer call and she
>> never gives up. She's the one who calls about better rates for your
>> credit cards. The proper response for a computer call is Just Hang Up.
>> For a live person you say "No, please don't call again, take my name
>> off of your list."

The frustrating thing about "Rachel" is that if you select the option on
your phone to talk to a rep, as soon as you say to stop calling, they
hang up. The numeric option to take you off their list does the same
thing. I have just listed all of the recent calls from Credit Card
Services in the last couple of weeks and am going to file complaints. I
work for the contractor and directly deal with the FTC on the DNC
registration database so sometimes I answer just to tell these
telemarketers just that, and can never get a live person on the phone.
They're really getting out of control lately!

>>
>> The folks claiming to be a tech from Microsoft is a brand new scam
>> that has caught so many people that the Feds have put out an alert
>> citizens. The people claiming to be from your phone company and
>> wanting to sign you up for something or check something will drive you
>> to curses and tears.

I haven't heard about that one. Will have to do some checking.

>>
>> Basically, unless you have initiated something with a company, you
>> just have to hang up.
>>
>> Thank you. It felt good to get that off my chest. I
>>
>> Janet US
>
> Much easier to not answer to begin with. If it's important they'll leave
> a message. Nothing is so important it can't wait a few minutes.
>

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:33:20 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:51:28 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> > wrote:
> snip
> >
> >I do have to wonder why the DNC list seems to have ceased being effective.
> >It seemed to work wonders when it was first implemented.
> >
> The rule is that if you have ever had any legitimate dealings with
> their company (or subs), they have a legal right to call you. If they
> are a political affiliation or religious group they can call you. If
> you ever respond to them, they can claim that you have done business
> with them. If you respond or call the number they give you to
> discontinue the calls, you have affirmed that the phone number is a
> live and good one.
>
> The most maddening one is 'Rachel'. She's a computer call and she
> never gives up. She's the one who calls about better rates for your
> credit cards. The proper response for a computer call is Just Hang Up.
> For a live person you say "No, please don't call again, take my name
> off of your list."
>
> The folks claiming to be a tech from Microsoft is a brand new scam
> that has caught so many people that the Feds have put out an alert
> citizens. The people claiming to be from your phone company and
> wanting to sign you up for something or check something will drive you
> to curses and tears.
>
> Basically, unless you have initiated something with a company, you
> just have to hang up.
>
> Thank you. It felt good to get that off my chest. I
>
> Janet US

Thank you, Janet. It's amazing how many here are under-informed or
not informed at all... they have no excuse now.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:33:20 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:



>
>The most maddening one is 'Rachel'. She's a computer call and she
>never gives up. She's the one who calls about better rates for your
>credit cards. The proper response for a computer call is Just Hang Up.
>For a live person you say "No, please don't call again, take my name
>off of your list."

I've played with the CC callers a couple of times. They start asking
me about what cards I have and I give them tens of thousands of
dollars of debt at 29.9% interest rates and income of $12,000. They
just keep taking the information.

Or the extended car warranty I told them I just bought a '91 Buick for
$3500 and think the warranty may be a good idea for it. I could hear
the guy choke back the laughter but he kept trying to make the sale.

On 10/12/2012 1:33 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:51:28 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> > wrote:
> snip
>>
>> I do have to wonder why the DNC list seems to have ceased being effective.
>> It seemed to work wonders when it was first implemented.
>>
> The rule is that if you have ever had any legitimate dealings with
> their company (or subs), they have a legal right to call you. If they

But that is specifically qualified. You can explicitly request they only
call for matters relating to the actual business relationship.


> are a political affiliation or religious group they can call you. If
> you ever respond to them, they can claim that you have done business
> with them. If you respond or call the number they give you to
> discontinue the calls, you have affirmed that the phone number is a
> live and good one.
>
> The most maddening one is 'Rachel'. She's a computer call and she
> never gives up. She's the one who calls about better rates for your
> credit cards. The proper response for a computer call is Just Hang Up.
> For a live person you say "No, please don't call again, take my name
> off of your list."
>
> The folks claiming to be a tech from Microsoft is a brand new scam
> that has caught so many people that the Feds have put out an alert
> citizens. The people claiming to be from your phone company and
> wanting to sign you up for something or check something will drive you
> to curses and tears.
>
> Basically, unless you have initiated something with a company, you
> just have to hang up.
>
> Thank you. It felt good to get that off my chest. I
>
> Janet US
>

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:11:42 -0400, George >
wrote:

>On 10/12/2012 1:33 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:51:28 -0700, "Pico Rico"
>> > wrote:
>> snip
snip
>>>
>> The rule is that if you have ever had any legitimate dealings with
>> their company (or subs), they have a legal right to call you. If they
>
>But that is specifically qualified. You can explicitly request they only
>call for matters relating to the actual business relationship.
>
snip

For the sake of argument, let's say that one time you ordered a widget
from xyz company on the internet and they required your phone number
to call you in case there was a problem with your order. Xyz company
is the proud parent of umpty-ump sub companies and in turn is owned by
Big Corporation, a multi-national. Xyz company will send your phone
number and data to all companies involved. Control of your phone
number becomes real hazy at this point. The electronic age just makes
it so darn easy for millions of contacts to be made for just pennies
that it isn't on the radar for a company to worry about it.

It seems like only yesterday that complaints were heard in offices
about all the fax paper being used by advertisers and legitmate faxes
were not received.
Our cell phone is never turned on unless we want to make a call. Our
land line is our only weak spot for these annoying calls.

The only solutions are to not answer the phone or to just hang up.

Janet US

"notbob" wrote in message ...

On 2012-10-12, James Silverton > wrote:

> them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
> political party.

Live call or recording?

I get a lotta recordings, which I promptly hang up on. I heard the
govt was gonna outlaw all recording calls, but haven't seen it. I
don't think they do much against blind live calls, either. That govt
do-not-call thing was probably more to make the govt look good than to
actually do anything to stop the calls. I notice the govt passes a
lot of laws making things illegal, but provides no penalty for
disobeying said laws. IOW, toothless laws, which are useless.

nb

~~~~~~~~~~
I registered on donotcall.gov. That greatly reduced the number of "junk"
calls but did not eliminate them. I also screen my calls and do not answer
unless I recognize the name or number. I never pick up and dial "1" because
that just shows it is an active number.

MaryL

On 12/10/2012 1:02 PM, MaryL wrote:

> I registered on donotcall.gov. That greatly reduced the number of
> "junk" calls but did not eliminate them. I also screen my calls and do
> not answer unless I recognize the name or number. I never pick up and
> dial "1" because that just shows it is an active number.
>

I have a small problem there. I have call display and some of them show
up as Long Distance, Problem is that we have a long distance plan
through Bell and I gave our son a card so he can call us on it.

Then there is the "private call" which usually isn't.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:49:17 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> Then there is the "private call" which usually isn't.

Why are people so compelled to answer the phone, even when they have
caller ID that doesn't give one? Those are the calls you don't ever
answer. Otherwise you might as well not pay for caller ID. It's a
waste of money when you're answering every call anyway.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:53:15 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:49:17 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>> Then there is the "private call" which usually isn't.
>
>Why are people so compelled to answer the phone, even when they have
>caller ID that doesn't give one? Those are the calls you don't ever
>answer. Otherwise you might as well not pay for caller ID. It's a
>waste of money when you're answering every call anyway.


It depends. We've received calls from IDs that we did not recognize
and they were from a doctor or medical office that we needed to hear
from.

Same with junk mail. When I approached 65, every insurance company in
North America was sending me information about Medicare. I tossed
most, but Met Life sent me another letter. Turns out, it was money
from a pension for a company (long out of business) that I worked for
in the 1960s. Caaaaaching!

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:53:15 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:49:17 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>> Then there is the "private call" which usually isn't.
>
>Why are people so compelled to answer the phone, even when they have
>caller ID that doesn't give one? Those are the calls you don't ever
>answer. Otherwise you might as well not pay for caller ID. It's a
>waste of money when you're answering every call anyway.

I'm with you on everything but paying for caller ID-- I pay $50/mo
for my landline, with an assortment of goodies including caller ID.

I answer when my parents, wife, or one of the kids calls. all
others can leave a message.

Jim

"Dave Smith" wrote in message ...

On 12/10/2012 1:02 PM, MaryL wrote:

> I registered on donotcall.gov. That greatly reduced the number of
> "junk" calls but did not eliminate them. I also screen my calls and do
> not answer unless I recognize the name or number. I never pick up and
> dial "1" because that just shows it is an active number.
>

I have a small problem there. I have call display and some of them show
up as Long Distance, Problem is that we have a long distance plan
through Bell and I gave our son a card so he can call us on it.

Then there is the "private call" which usually isn't.

~~~~~~~~~~
I have an answering machine, so I always assume that anyone who really wants
to speak to me will leave a message. If it is someone I know (but whose
name did not show up on caller ID), I can immediately pick up the phone.

MaryL

On 12/10/2012 9:14 PM, MaryL wrote:

> I have an answering machine, so I always assume that anyone who really
> wants to speak to me will leave a message. If it is someone I know (but
> whose name did not show up on caller ID), I can immediately pick up the
> phone.


I have call display and call answer. Every once in a while I return home
and see that my brother has called three or four times.... but no message.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2012-10-12, James Silverton > wrote:
>
>> them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
>> political party.
>
> Live call or recording?
>
> I get a lotta recordings, which I promptly hang up on. I heard the
> govt was gonna outlaw all recording calls, but haven't seen it. I
> don't think they do much against blind live calls, either. That govt
> do-not-call thing was probably more to make the govt look good than to
> actually do anything to stop the calls. I notice the govt passes a
> lot of laws making things illegal, but provides no penalty for
> disobeying said laws. IOW, toothless laws, which are useless.
>
> nb

I just read that something like two weeks ago they managed to stop "Rachel"
the robocaller who cheerily calls you about credit cards. Most of my
unwanted calls are now the robo ones.

On 10/13/2012 1:56 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2012-10-12, James Silverton > wrote:
>>
>>> them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
>>> political party.
>>
>> Live call or recording?
>>
>> I get a lotta recordings, which I promptly hang up on. I heard the
>> govt was gonna outlaw all recording calls, but haven't seen it. I
>> don't think they do much against blind live calls, either. That govt
>> do-not-call thing was probably more to make the govt look good than to
>> actually do anything to stop the calls. I notice the govt passes a
>> lot of laws making things illegal, but provides no penalty for
>> disobeying said laws. IOW, toothless laws, which are useless.
>>
>> nb
>
> I just read that something like two weeks ago they managed to stop "Rachel"
> the robocaller who cheerily calls you about credit cards. Most of my
> unwanted calls are now the robo ones.
>
>
Rachel isn't stopped yet. I've had robocalls from her many times in the
last week.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/13/2012 1:56 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>> "notbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2012-10-12, James Silverton > wrote:
>>>
>>>> them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
>>>> political party.
>>>
>>> Live call or recording?
>>>
>>> I get a lotta recordings, which I promptly hang up on. I heard the
>>> govt was gonna outlaw all recording calls, but haven't seen it. I
>>> don't think they do much against blind live calls, either. That govt
>>> do-not-call thing was probably more to make the govt look good than to
>>> actually do anything to stop the calls. I notice the govt passes a
>>> lot of laws making things illegal, but provides no penalty for
>>> disobeying said laws. IOW, toothless laws, which are useless.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> I just read that something like two weeks ago they managed to stop
>> "Rachel"
>> the robocaller who cheerily calls you about credit cards. Most of my
>> unwanted calls are now the robo ones.
>>
>>
> Rachel isn't stopped yet. I've had robocalls from her many times in the
> last week.

Hmmm... Let me see if I can find the link. Well of course now I can not.
I did find some others that say the FTC has shut her down many times but she
still keeps going.

On 10/13/2012 2:39 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 10/13/2012 1:56 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>> "notbob" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2012-10-12, James Silverton > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> them. The latest is from Disney World, which is hardly a charity or a
>>>>> political party.
>>>>
>>>> Live call or recording?
>>>>
>>>> I get a lotta recordings, which I promptly hang up on. I heard the
>>>> govt was gonna outlaw all recording calls, but haven't seen it. I
>>>> don't think they do much against blind live calls, either. That govt
>>>> do-not-call thing was probably more to make the govt look good than to
>>>> actually do anything to stop the calls. I notice the govt passes a
>>>> lot of laws making things illegal, but provides no penalty for
>>>> disobeying said laws. IOW, toothless laws, which are useless.
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>
>>> I just read that something like two weeks ago they managed to stop
>>> "Rachel"
>>> the robocaller who cheerily calls you about credit cards. Most of my
>>> unwanted calls are now the robo ones.
>>>
>>>
>> Rachel isn't stopped yet. I've had robocalls from her many times in the
>> last week.
>
> Hmmm... Let me see if I can find the link. Well of course now I can not.
> I did find some others that say the FTC has shut her down many times but she
> still keeps going.
>
>
She's not a "she". She's a recording. "She" sometimes goes by other
names. And I have several phone numbers "she" calls from, sometimes a
couple of times a day. Trust me, Julie, I know about the DNC stuff.