All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.

I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
a message including ID?
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 2015-01-17, James Silverton > wrote:

> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
> a message including ID?

Agree.

I get a buncha bogus calls, like "wireless caller", etc. My most
recent is "Ohio". Calls twice per day and leaves no message. I can
ignore my phone jes as often as you dial it!

nb

On 01/17/2015 10:26 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
> have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
> and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>
> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
> a message including ID?

In my house, I have one rule: I pay the telephone bills, so I make the
rules. A corollary to this rule is that I feel no compunction whatsoever
to answer any incoming call, unless it comes from family, friends or
established business relationships. In all other cases, it's pick up the
phone and hang up immediately.

On 1/17/2015 1:34 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:26:34 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>
>> All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
>> have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
>> and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>>
>> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
>> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
>> a message including ID?
>
> If you're THIS lonely to be posting all this OT crap here, then you
> should be answering ALL the calls that you get.
>
> of course you know you'll get dozens of replies about spam
> telemarketing here, just like you did last time you instigated a
> similar conversation.
>
> Nothing but a lonely troll.
>
> -sw
>
We *do* seem to go through this pointless discussion once a year at the
very least.

If they won't identify themselves or leave a message then it can't be
terribly important. Seems pretty simple to me. Then again, I have no
problem ignoring a ringing telephone.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/17/2015 1:34 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:26:34 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>> All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
>>> have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
>>> and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>>>
>>> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
>>> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
>>> a message including ID?
>>
>> If you're THIS lonely to be posting all this OT crap here, then you
>> should be answering ALL the calls that you get.
>>
>> of course you know you'll get dozens of replies about spam
>> telemarketing here, just like you did last time you instigated a
>> similar conversation.
>>
>> Nothing but a lonely troll.
>>
>> -sw
>>
> We *do* seem to go through this pointless discussion once a year at the
> very least.
>
> If they won't identify themselves or leave a message then it can't be
> terribly important. Seems pretty simple to me. Then again, I have no
> problem ignoring a ringing telephone.
>
> Jill

but maybe it's the club with a fantastic meal deal for you!

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:26:34 -0500, James Silverton
> > wrote:
>
>>All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
>>have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
>>and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>>
>>I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
>>unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
>>a message including ID?
>
> Well it can cause problems needlessly. Last weekend a friend dropped
> past as I had printed off passport renewal forms for her. She had
> arranged to go from here to another friend so they could sign as a
> reference.
>
> When she filled them in, come to find one no longer needs a signature
> for that, simply the name, details and phone number of the reference.
> She wanted to call her other friend and avoid going across town but
> the friend kept not picking up the phone, my phone shows as Unknown
> Number because it not listed. So she had to go needlessly to tell
> her.
>

well if she didn't get an answer after leaving her message, maybe she is
persona non grata.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:26:34 -0500, James Silverton
> wrote:

> All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
> have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
> and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>
> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
> a message including ID?

Not necessarily, but if they are a stranger - I don't care.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

I have gotten calls from me. In the night I sometimes hear a phone ringing and it's not my phone. I think it's my sick friend who is nearly comatose trying to contact me.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 12:34:30 -0600, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:26:34 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>> All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
>>> have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
>>> and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>>>
>>> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
>>> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
>>> a message including ID?
>>
>>If you're THIS lonely to be posting all this OT crap here, then you
>>should be answering ALL the calls that you get.
>>
>>of course you know you'll get dozens of replies about spam
>>telemarketing here, just like you did last time you instigated a
>>similar conversation.
>>
>>Nothing but a lonely troll.
>>
>>-sw
>
> Have to start calling you George Leppla ! What bit you today?

Plus *he* responded to the post while bitching about it. LOL

Cheri

On 1/17/2015 1:26 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
> have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
> and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>
> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
> a message including ID?


Maybe. When my grandson's pharmacy calls is just says TOLL FREE CALL
and an 800 number.

We do get a log of WIRELESS CALLER and most are legit, but we recognize
the number. With the proliferation of cell phones, it seems they don't
keep up with the names well. If my wife calls on her cell it comes up
with the wireless caller, but the number does display. From experience
I'd say you can ignore most (95%) of them, but if you are expecting a
call from someone that has never called you before, there is always that
possibility it could be them

We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or just
the number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as the caller.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/17/2015 1:26 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>> All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
>> have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
>> and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>>
>> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
>> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
>> a message including ID?
>
>
> Maybe. When my grandson's pharmacy calls is just says TOLL FREE CALL and
> an 800 number.
>
> We do get a log of WIRELESS CALLER and most are legit, but we recognize
> the number. With the proliferation of cell phones, it seems they don't
> keep up with the names well. If my wife calls on her cell it comes up
> with the wireless caller, but the number does display. From experience I'd
> say you can ignore most (95%) of them, but if you are expecting a call
> from someone that has never called you before, there is always that
> possibility it could be them
>
> We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or just the
> number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as the caller.
>

if in doubt, screen the call with your answering machine. Or answer,
pretending to be one.

On 1/17/2015 1:52 PM, jmcquown wrote:

>
> If they won't identify themselves or leave a message then it can't be
> terribly important. Seems pretty simple to me. Then again, I have no
> problem ignoring a ringing telephone.
>
> Jill

My wife ignored one last Friday. It sure looked like the telemarketer
type of number, turns out it was one of her doctor's offices calling.
They left a message, but we did not see it until it was too late to call
that day. That was the only time their number did not show properly.

On 1/17/2015 3:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/17/2015 1:52 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>>
>> If they won't identify themselves or leave a message then it can't be
>> terribly important. Seems pretty simple to me. Then again, I have no
>> problem ignoring a ringing telephone.
>>
>> Jill
>
> My wife ignored one last Friday. It sure looked like the telemarketer
> type of number, turns out it was one of her doctor's offices calling.
> They left a message, but we did not see it until it was too late to call
> that day. That was the only time their number did not show properly.

I'd have to say that's probably a rare exception. I have never had
Unknown Caller display when my doctor's office is calling. It's not
their fault you/she didn't listen to or check for a message earlier.
It's probably not their fault what showed up on the caller ID screen,
either. I do hope it wasn't anything serious.

Jill

On 1/17/2015 4:28 PM, jmcquown wrote:

>>
>> My wife ignored one last Friday. It sure looked like the telemarketer
>> type of number, turns out it was one of her doctor's offices calling.
>> They left a message, but we did not see it until it was too late to call
>> that day. That was the only time their number did not show properly.
>
> I'd have to say that's probably a rare exception. I have never had
> Unknown Caller display when my doctor's office is calling. It's not
> their fault you/she didn't listen to or check for a message earlier.
> It's probably not their fault what showed up on the caller ID screen,
> either. I do hope it wasn't anything serious.
>
> Jill

It was rare, the only time it happened. When I came home I scrolled the
CID and saw nothing of interest. Couple of hours later I went into our
office and was the message. Fortunately, while important, it was not
serious.

On 1/17/2015 4:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/17/2015 4:28 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>>>
>>> My wife ignored one last Friday. It sure looked like the telemarketer
>>> type of number, turns out it was one of her doctor's offices calling.
>>> They left a message, but we did not see it until it was too late to call
>>> that day. That was the only time their number did not show properly.
>>
>> I'd have to say that's probably a rare exception. I have never had
>> Unknown Caller display when my doctor's office is calling. It's not
>> their fault you/she didn't listen to or check for a message earlier.
>> It's probably not their fault what showed up on the caller ID screen,
>> either. I do hope it wasn't anything serious.
>>
>> Jill
>
> It was rare, the only time it happened. When I came home I scrolled the
> CID and saw nothing of interest. Couple of hours later I went into our
> office and was the message. Fortunately, while important, it was not
> serious.

That's good news, at least.

This is one reason I don't have telephones in every room. I realize not
everyone's situation is the same but when I had multiple phones it
really was a PITA.

I had a phone in the kitchen. No need for it so I took it out. When
I'm in the kitchen I'm either cooking or sitting down to eat. The
machine in the den will take a message. And yes, I can hear it. I
decide whether or not to answer. I don't go running because the phone
rings to see who it is. Unless I'm expecting a call. (There's always
an exception, eh?)

I no longer have a phone in my bedroom. Some people wouldn't stop
calling me about goofy stuff in the middle of the night. That's enough
of that. No more phone in the bedroom.

Jill

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:24:57 PM UTC-5, James Silverton wrote:
> All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
> have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
> and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>
> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
> a message including ID?


999 out of 1000 calls are not life or death matters - so don't worry about what you may have missed.

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message:
> >
> > We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or just the
> > number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as the caller.
> >
I've gotten two like this with MY name and number showing as being the caller. No message left.
>
>
> if in doubt, screen the call with your answering machine. Or answer,
> pretending to be one.
>
>
UGH, I hate it when the answering does pick up but they never say anything as it's a marketing call of some sort, robotic to be sure. The Pro Caller Block device I bought last year has weeded out 99% of those stupid calls.

$65 verrrrrry well spent, I think.

On 2015-01-17 2:01 PM, wrote:
> I have gotten calls from me. In the night I sometimes hear a phone
> ringing and it's not my phone. I think it's my sick friend who is
> nearly comatose trying to contact me.
>

The last very late night call I had from a name and number we didn't
recognize turned out to have been my mother's neighbour. She had been
asked to call to tell me that may mother had fallen and was not taken to
the hospital but someone was to check her first thing in the morning.

On 2015-01-17 5:22 PM, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message:
>>>
>>> We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or
>>> just the number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as
>>> the caller.
>>>
> I've gotten two like this with MY name and number showing as being
> the caller. No message left.

Funny. I have had emails from myself that I did not send.

On 1/17/2015 5:19 PM, Kalmia wrote:
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:24:57 PM UTC-5, James Silverton wrote:
>> All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
>> have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
>> and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>>
>> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
>> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
>> a message including ID?
>
>
> 999 out of 1000 calls are not life or death matters - so don't worry about what you may have missed.
>
It's pretty simple: If they hang up without leaving a message it
couldn't be terribly important. Certainly not Lassie barking out "Timmy
fell down the well!" important. YMMV

Jill

"James Silverton" wrote in message ...

All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.

I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
a message including ID?
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

~~~~~~~
I do the same thing. I only pick up if I know the person shown on caller ID
or recognize the number. I assume that anyone who really needs/wants to
talk to me will leave a message. My phone system also has "talking caller
ID," so I can easily screen the calls if I am home, and I will pick up as
soon as someone starts talking if it is someone I know. The only exception
is when I am expecting an important call and am not sure of the telephone
number. What's more, I usually regret picking up in those cases--the
"important call" usually shows the name of the person or business, and the
pick up without that information is usually spam.

MaryL

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:26:34 -0500, James Silverton
> > wrote:
>
> >All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
> >have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
> >and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
> >
> >I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
> >unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
> >a message including ID?
>
> Well it can cause problems needlessly. Last weekend a friend dropped
> past as I had printed off passport renewal forms for her. She had
> arranged to go from here to another friend so they could sign as a
> reference.
>
> When she filled them in, come to find one no longer needs a signature
> for that, simply the name, details and phone number of the reference.
> She wanted to call her other friend and avoid going across town but
> the friend kept not picking up the phone, my phone shows as Unknown
> Number because it not listed. So she had to go needlessly to tell
> her.

? She could just have left a message

Janet UK

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:26:34 -0500, James Silverton
> > wrote:
>
>>All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
>>have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
>>and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>>
>>I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
>>unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
>>a message including ID?
>
> Well it can cause problems needlessly. Last weekend a friend dropped
> past as I had printed off passport renewal forms for her. She had
> arranged to go from here to another friend so they could sign as a
> reference.
>
> When she filled them in, come to find one no longer needs a signature
> for that, simply the name, details and phone number of the reference.
> She wanted to call her other friend and avoid going across town but
> the friend kept not picking up the phone, my phone shows as Unknown
> Number because it not listed. So she had to go needlessly to tell
> her.

You and your friend are both dopes. An unlisted number and having your
caller ID blocked are two separate things. Dial *82 before you make a call
from a caller ID blocked phone, and the caller ID is unblocked for that
call.

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 1:51:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:26:34 -0500, James Silverton
> > wrote:
>
> >All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
> >have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
> >and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
> >
> >I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
> >unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
> >a message including ID?
>
> Well it can cause problems needlessly. Last weekend a friend dropped
> past as I had printed off passport renewal forms for her. She had
> arranged to go from here to another friend so they could sign as a
> reference.
>
> When she filled them in, come to find one no longer needs a signature
> for that, simply the name, details and phone number of the reference.
> She wanted to call her other friend and avoid going across town but
> the friend kept not picking up the phone, my phone shows as Unknown
> Number because it not listed. So she had to go needlessly to tell
> her.

Didn't the friend have an answering device, where your buddy could yell, "It's me - pickup the @$#$ phone."?

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 5:22:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
> >
> > "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message:
> > >
> > > We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or just the
> > > number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as the caller.
> > >
> I've gotten two like this with MY name and number showing as being the caller. No message left.
> >
> >
> > if in doubt, screen the call with your answering machine. Or answer,
> > pretending to be one.
> >
> >
> UGH, I hate it when the answering does pick up but they never say anything as it's a marketing call of some sort, robotic to be sure. The Pro Caller Block device I bought last year has weeded out 99% of those stupid calls.
>
> $65 verrrrrry well spent, I think.

Could this ever backfire on you tho? Or do you choose every number you wish to block?

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-01-17 5:22 PM, wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>> We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or
>>>> just the number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as
>>>> the caller.
>>>>
>> I've gotten two like this with MY name and number showing as being
>> the caller. No message left.
>
> Funny. I have had emails from myself that I did not send.
>

you just don't remember sending them.

> wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message:
>> >
>> > We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or just
>> > the
>> > number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as the caller.
>> >
> I've gotten two like this with MY name and number showing as being the
> caller. No message left.
>>
>>
>> if in doubt, screen the call with your answering machine. Or answer,
>> pretending to be one.
>>
>>
> UGH, I hate it when the answering does pick up but they never say anything
> as it's a marketing call of some sort, robotic to be sure. The Pro Caller
> Block device I bought last year has weeded out 99% of those stupid calls.
>
> $65 verrrrrry well spent, I think.
>

thanks. that was just the kick in the pants I needed to get one myself.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:37:34 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-01-17 5:22 PM, wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>> We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or
>>>> just the number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as
>>>> the caller.
>>>>
>> I've gotten two like this with MY name and number showing as being
>> the caller. No message left.
>
>Funny. I have had emails from myself that I did not send.
>
That's a pretty good sign you've been hacked and you need to change
your e-mail password.

koko

--

Food is our common ground, a universal experience
James Beard

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 7:08:22 PM UTC-6, Kalmia wrote:
>
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 5:22:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > UGH, I hate it when the answering does pick up but they never say anything as it's a marketing call of some sort, robotic to be sure. The Pro Caller Block device I bought last year has weeded out 99% of those stupid calls.
> >
> > $65 verrrrrry well spent, I think.
>
> Could this ever backfire on you tho? Or do you choose every number you wish to block?
>
>
I can choose which numbers to block. I was getting 4 or 5 marketing calls every day and the answering machine did answer but messages were never left.. Even though the machine answered it was annoying to hear that phone ring so many times per day. Now some days it doesn't ring at all and the silence is much appreciated.

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 7:54:19 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> >>
> > UGH, I hate it when the answering does pick up but they never say anything
> > as it's a marketing call of some sort, robotic to be sure. The Pro Caller
> > Block device I bought last year has weeded out 99% of those stupid calls.
> >
> > $65 verrrrrry well spent, I think.
> >
>
> thanks. that was just the kick in the pants I needed to get one myself.
>
>
The one I bought will block 1,000 calls if I remember correctly (too lazy to get up and look). Right now it has 100 blocked numbers in memory and about 85 of those blocked calls are marketing calls and I've had this gizmo just over a year.

On 2015-01-17 21:23, wrote:

> I can choose which numbers to block. I was getting 4 or 5 marketing
> calls every day and the answering machine did answer but messages
> were never left. Even though the machine answered it was annoying to
> hear that phone ring so many times per day. Now some days it doesn't
> ring at all and the silence is much appreciated.
>
I have call blocking on my phone, but it rings once. I had one so
called charity that my wife made the mistake of donating to and they
would not leave us alone. I blocked their number. They tried a couple
times a week for months. Then one day they caught me using a different
number. I told them it was clever of them to use a different number
because I had the old one blocked... so did he expect that I was going
to give money because they had managed to trick me with the new one. I
have not back from them.

jmcquown wrote:
> On 1/17/2015 4:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/17/2015 4:28 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> My wife ignored one last Friday. It sure looked like the telemarketer
>>>> type of number, turns out it was one of her doctor's offices calling.
>>>> They left a message, but we did not see it until it was too late to
>>>> call
>>>> that day. That was the only time their number did not show properly.
>>>
>>> I'd have to say that's probably a rare exception. I have never had
>>> Unknown Caller display when my doctor's office is calling. It's not
>>> their fault you/she didn't listen to or check for a message earlier.
>>> It's probably not their fault what showed up on the caller ID screen,
>>> either. I do hope it wasn't anything serious.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> It was rare, the only time it happened. When I came home I scrolled the
>> CID and saw nothing of interest. Couple of hours later I went into our
>> office and was the message. Fortunately, while important, it was not
>> serious.
>
> That's good news, at least.
>
> This is one reason I don't have telephones in every room. I realize
> not everyone's situation is the same but when I had multiple phones it
> really was a PITA.
>
> I had a phone in the kitchen. No need for it so I took it out. When
> I'm in the kitchen I'm either cooking or sitting down to eat. The
> machine in the den will take a message. And yes, I can hear it. I
> decide whether or not to answer. I don't go running because the phone
> rings to see who it is. Unless I'm expecting a call. (There's always
> an exception, eh?)
>
> I no longer have a phone in my bedroom. Some people wouldn't stop
> calling me about goofy stuff in the middle of the night. That's
> enough of that. No more phone in the bedroom.
>
> Jill
>
Thanks for that important post.

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 8:51:53 PM UTC-6, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I have call blocking on my phone, but it rings once.
>
>
This blocking device will let the blocked caller ring one time and that let's me know it's one of the annoying companies still trying to reach me. When I do eventually look at the display sure enough there's the number with the little emblem of a lock next to it. Some companies have a hard giving up trying to contact me. :-)

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 8:24:57 AM UTC-10, James Silverton wrote:
> All the phones that are convenient in my house can display Caller ID. I
> have taken only to answering those that show an intelligible identity
> and not "unknown caller" etc., nor "wireless caller" nor a phone number.
>
> I also have an answering service and I wonder if I am making any
> unfortunate mistakes with my policy since any serious caller will leave
> a message including ID?
> --
> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
>
> Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

I think you're doing the right thing. I use my cell as a business line and I'm very reluctant to pick up from unknown numbers these days. I used to mark all calls from telemarketers and hang ups with "DNA" but now I just won't pickup unless it's in my phone book. My guess is that I get a lot more shitty calls than you because my number is listed to a business. It's a damn nuisance!

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:37:34 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2015-01-17 5:22 PM, wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
> >>
> >> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message:
> >>>
> >>> We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or
> >>> just the number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as
> >>> the caller.
> >>>
> > I've gotten two like this with MY name and number showing as being
> > the caller. No message left.
>
> Funny. I have had emails from myself that I did not send.
>
>
Wondering what you people have done for that to happen.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:10:04 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:37:34 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

snip

>> Funny. I have had emails from myself that I did not send.
>> >>
>Wondering what you people have done for that to happen.

The dog must have done it, after all, dogs are very good at changing
TV channels
Janet US

On 2015-01-17, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 2015-01-17 5:22 PM, wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message:

>>>> We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or
>>>> just the number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as
>>>> the caller.

>> I've gotten two like this with MY name and number showing as being
>> the caller. No message left.

> Funny. I have had emails from myself that I did not send.

I also have experienced this telephone weirdness. Get a call and
caller ID names myself and my home number as the caller. Hell no, I
ain't ansering that call!

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-01-17, Dave Smith > wrote:
>> On 2015-01-17 5:22 PM, wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message:
>
>>>>> We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or
>>>>> just the number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as
>>>>> the caller.
>
>>> I've gotten two like this with MY name and number showing as being
>>> the caller. No message left.
>
>> Funny. I have had emails from myself that I did not send.
>
> I also have experienced this telephone weirdness. Get a call and
> caller ID names myself and my home number as the caller. Hell no, I
> ain't ansering that call!
>
> nb

it could have been you in the future calling you to warn you about something
important!

On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 00:17:57 -0700, Janet B >
wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:10:04 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:37:34 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> Funny. I have had emails from myself that I did not send.
> >> >>
> >Wondering what you people have done for that to happen.
>
> The dog must have done it, after all, dogs are very good at changing
> TV channels

Dogs aren't that devious, I blame the cat.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On 1/17/2015 7:54 PM, koko wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:37:34 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2015-01-17 5:22 PM, wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 2:54:37 PM UTC-6, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message:
>>>>>
>>>>> We always ignore the ones that just come up with a state name or
>>>>> just the number 1 and even the ones that show our house number as
>>>>> the caller.
>>>>>
>>> I've gotten two like this with MY name and number showing as being
>>> the caller. No message left.
>>
>> Funny. I have had emails from myself that I did not send.
>>
> That's a pretty good sign you've been hacked and you need to change
> your e-mail password.

What sometimes happens is that a friend is hacked and their contact list
is stolen. If you were on the contact list, the hacker will use your
name and email address to spoof emails.

This happened to me once. Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do
about that.


--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas