Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #32296 > unrolled thread

Anybody here who still pays for a landline

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:11 -0700
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-19 22:16 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 03:22 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 03:11 -0500
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:31 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:05 -0700
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 12:18 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 12:36 -0500
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:28 -0400
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 19:24 -0500
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:58 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline John Carter <me@mymailsvr.org> - 2016-08-19 01:27 +0000
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 03:13 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:09 -0700
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 11:44 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:32 -0400
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 18:35 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 13:03 -0500
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-20 05:59 +0200
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 00:26 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:55 +0000
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-20 18:36 +0200
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 17:46 +0000
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 21:29 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-07-20 09:03 +0100
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-20 12:53 +0100
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 04:16 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 10:38 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 10:52 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 11:52 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:11 -0700
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:32 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 16:41 -0700
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-21 07:09 +0200
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Tim <timothybil@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 09:09 -0500
                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:46 -0700
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:23 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:51 -0700
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 15:09 -0700
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 18:23 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 07:47 +0000
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:42 -0400
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-23 11:42 +0100
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:28 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:59 -0700
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-07-22 19:08 -0400
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 00:30 -0400
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-23 04:00 -0400
                            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-23 06:07 -0400
                              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 04:17 -0400
                                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 08:13 -0700
                                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 16:23 -0400
                                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 19:24 -0700
                                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 20:14 -0700
                                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 04:29 -0400
                                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-26 09:30 -0400
                                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:38 -0700
                                            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-26 17:58 +0100
                                            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:17 -0400
                                              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 15:23 -0400
                                                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-27 02:30 -0400
                                              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:46 -0700
                                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline crankypuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:12 -0600
                                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 04:27 -0400
                                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:27 -0700
                                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-26 13:40 -0400
                                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 11:16 -0400
                                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 16:27 -0400
                                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 16:35 -0400
                                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 19:38 -0400
                                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 20:21 -0400
                                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-07-24 22:07 -0400
                                            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 22:11 -0400
                            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:35 -0400
                              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:16 -0700
                                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 23:48 -0400
                                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 20:55 -0700
                              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 04:22 -0400
                                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:27 -0400
                                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-27 02:38 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline crankpuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 06:34 -0600
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:41 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:03 -0700
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 21:30 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:02 -0700
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:49 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-20 18:40 +0200
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:53 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-20 05:59 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 10:38 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 10:52 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 11:53 -0400
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 12:18 -0400
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 12:43 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:13 -0700
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 11:44 -0400
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 11:08 -0700
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 14:15 -0400
                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 12:24 -0700
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 15:47 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 16:42 -0700
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-25 17:58 +0000
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:03 -0700
                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 15:27 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 15:47 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 16:07 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:31 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 16:45 -0700
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 20:01 -0700
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-21 00:15 -0400
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 02:08 -0400
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 04:04 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 02:17 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-25 17:49 +0000
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 03:51 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 03:44 -0400
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-25 17:53 +0000
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:55 +0000
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-20 12:53 +0100
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-23 23:38 +0100
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 11:16 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-25 07:32 +0100
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 10:25 -0400
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-07-20 07:04 -0500
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:16 -0700
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 11:44 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 11:08 -0700
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:09 -0700
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-20 17:29 +0100
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 12:44 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:45 +0000
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-21 10:41 +0100
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-21 09:13 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:59 -0700
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:26 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:29 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:28 -0400
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline "tb" <nospam@example.invalid> - 2016-07-20 13:41 +0000
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:32 -0400
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-21 02:58 +1000
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 12:59 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:34 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-21 22:38 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:34 -0400

Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#32600

On 07/21/2016 07:23 PM, Micky wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:46:39 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Tired of telemarketing calls so I just ordered this from Amazon:
>>
>>https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00U1PPWDO/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>>
>>Anybody know if I just did something stupid?
>
> It depends.  Did you order it within 14 hours and choose Same Day
> Delivery?
>
> It sounds pretty good to me.  Unless you have more than 1500 people
> spamming you.
>
> I only get about 3 to 10 a week, and I don't know what numbers they
> are, or I'd get one. .... well, maybe not.  The answer to the first
> question wasn't as good as I thought it would be, but that's because I
> really want everyone to get through.  If I gave out my number, I'd
> just say to punch zero and call back.    I checked all 3 answers.
> Sometimes answers directly contradict each other.
>
>>So far I haven't received any telemarketing calls on my cell, but we get
>>dozens/day on the "landline" phone, mostly of the 'dead air' variety.
>
> YOu must be slow to pick up.  They dial 5 or 10 at the same time and
> whoever answers first wins.

Phone rings.  If I pick it up I hear dead air for a while and then some 
jerk comes on.  Normal practicw, since the phne is right nect to me is 
pick it up, see a number i don't recognize, click ON an immediately OFF. 
  No big deal, but it's still annoying.  With the Sentry I can whitelist 
friends and other legit callers and some/most/all of the dead-air 
assholes will have their first ring absorbed, along with the jerks on 
the nationwide spam list.  We'll see.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
----------------------------------------------------------
"When I was in college, the only job I could get was
  shitting on people's lawns.  Sure, the owners complained,
  but it was honest work and it kept me off welfare..."
                         -- M. Tabnik in mcfl (paraphrased)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32607

On 07/22/2016 01:51 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 07/21/2016 07:23 PM, Micky wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:46:39 -0700, The Real Bev
>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Tired of telemarketing calls so I just ordered this from Amazon:
>>>
>>>https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00U1PPWDO/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>>>
>>>Anybody know if I just did something stupid?
>>
>> It depends.  Did you order it within 14 hours and choose Same Day
>> Delivery?
>>
>> It sounds pretty good to me.  Unless you have more than 1500 people
>> spamming you.
>>
>> I only get about 3 to 10 a week, and I don't know what numbers they
>> are, or I'd get one. .... well, maybe not.  The answer to the first
>> question wasn't as good as I thought it would be, but that's because I
>> really want everyone to get through.  If I gave out my number, I'd
>> just say to punch zero and call back.    I checked all 3 answers.
>> Sometimes answers directly contradict each other.
>>
>>>So far I haven't received any telemarketing calls on my cell, but we get
>>>dozens/day on the "landline" phone, mostly of the 'dead air' variety.
>>
>> YOu must be slow to pick up.  They dial 5 or 10 at the same time and
>> whoever answers first wins.
>
> Phone rings.  If I pick it up I hear dead air for a while and then some
> jerk comes on.  Normal practicw, since the phne is right nect to me is
> pick it up, see a number i don't recognize, click ON an immediately OFF.
>    No big deal, but it's still annoying.  With the Sentry I can whitelist
> friends and other legit callers and some/most/all of the dead-air
> assholes will have their first ring absorbed, along with the jerks on
> the nationwide spam list.  We'll see.

This is what happens when you type one-handed while you're holding the 
phone in your other hand because you don't feel like putting it on 
speakerphone.  Mea culpa.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
==================================================
STRESS MANAGEMENT

Picture yourself near a stream.
Birds are singing in the crisp, cool mountain air.
Nothing can bother you here.
No one knows this secret place.
You are in total seclusion from
that place called the world.
The soothing sound of a gentle waterfall
fills the air with a cascade of serenity.
The water is crystal clear.
You can easily make out the face of the person
whose head you're holding under the water.
                                          -- KevinT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32609

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:51:36 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 07/21/2016 07:23 PM, Micky wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:46:39 -0700, The Real Bev
>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Tired of telemarketing calls so I just ordered this from Amazon:
>>>
>>>https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00U1PPWDO/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>>>
>>>Anybody know if I just did something stupid?
>>
>> It depends.  Did you order it within 14 hours and choose Same Day
>> Delivery?
>>
>> It sounds pretty good to me.  Unless you have more than 1500 people
>> spamming you.
>>
>> I only get about 3 to 10 a week, and I don't know what numbers they
>> are, or I'd get one. .... well, maybe not.  The answer to the first
>> question wasn't as good as I thought it would be, but that's because I
>> really want everyone to get through.  If I gave out my number, I'd
>> just say to punch zero and call back.    I checked all 3 answers.
>> Sometimes answers directly contradict each other.
>>
>>>So far I haven't received any telemarketing calls on my cell, but we get
>>>dozens/day on the "landline" phone, mostly of the 'dead air' variety.
>>
>> YOu must be slow to pick up.  They dial 5 or 10 at the same time and
>> whoever answers first wins.
>
>Phone rings.  If I pick it up I hear dead air for a while and then some 
>jerk comes on.  Normal practicw, since the phne is right nect to me is 
>pick it up, see a number i don't recognize, click ON an immediately OFF. 
>  No big deal, but it's still annoying.  With the Sentry I can whitelist 
>friends and other legit callers and some/most/all of the dead-air 
>assholes will have their first ring absorbed, along with the jerks on 
>the nationwide spam list.  We'll see.

Oh, yeah.  I see the usefulness completely.  And it's the kind of
thing you might have a use for for as much as 30 years.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32559

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tired of telemarketing calls so I just ordered this from Amazon:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00U1PPWDO/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> Anybody know if I just did something stupid?
> 
> So far I haven't received any telemarketing calls on my cell, but we get 
> dozens/day on the "landline" phone, mostly of the 'dead air' variety.

in the uk marketing companies are regularly fined for making too many
silent calls. We also have an opt-out system which kinda works.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32599

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:47:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tired of telemarketing calls so I just ordered this from Amazon:
>> 
>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00U1PPWDO/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>> 
>> Anybody know if I just did something stupid?
>> 
>> So far I haven't received any telemarketing calls on my cell, but we get 
>> dozens/day on the "landline" phone, mostly of the 'dead air' variety.
>
>in the uk marketing companies are regularly fined for making too many
>silent calls. We also have an opt-out system which kinda works.

What do you do about calls from out of the UK, out of the (ahem), EU? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32645

On 22/07/2016 21:42, Micky wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:47:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
[]
>> in the uk marketing companies are regularly fined for making too many
>> silent calls. We also have an opt-out system which kinda works.
>
> What do you do about calls from out of the UK, out of the (ahem), EU?

One of these works very well for me:

   http://www.truecall.co.uk/

Some companies cannot be fined if they are outside our jurisdiction, and 
I think that means out of the UK.

-- 
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32654

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:42:08 -0400, Micky
<NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:47:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tired of telemarketing calls so I just ordered this from Amazon:
>>> 
>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00U1PPWDO/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>>> 
>>> Anybody know if I just did something stupid?
>>> 
>>> So far I haven't received any telemarketing calls on my cell, but we get 
>>> dozens/day on the "landline" phone, mostly of the 'dead air' variety.
>>
>>in the uk marketing companies are regularly fined for making too many
>>silent calls. We also have an opt-out system which kinda works.
>
>What do you do about calls from out of the UK, out of the (ahem), EU? 

What I mean here is that most of the bad calls Americans get originate
out of the US, so we either can't fine them or can't collect on the
fines.   It's one of the bad byproducts of the space age that
international calls are as little as 1 or 2cents a minute, and
problaby cheaper yet when time is bought in bulk. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32601

On 07/22/2016 12:47 AM, Chris wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tired of telemarketing calls so I just ordered this from Amazon:
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00U1PPWDO/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>>
>> Anybody know if I just did something stupid?
>>
>> So far I haven't received any telemarketing calls on my cell, but we get
>> dozens/day on the "landline" phone, mostly of the 'dead air' variety.
>
> in the uk marketing companies are regularly fined for making too many
> silent calls. We also have an opt-out system which kinda works.

The US has a "Do Not Call List" -- you add the phone number and possibly 
the name of the offender via the web, and if they call you again you can 
sue them for some small amount of money (a couple of $hundred, I think). 
  So I have to spend hours filing in forms, going to court, etc.  No. 
What I want is to have the bastards put in the stocks for a couple of 
days to be pelted with garbage.  Seeing their heads on pikes would be 
better, but I probably couldn't have that.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
=============================================
You are more likely to catch swine flu from a
police officer than from an actual pig.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32611

On 07/22/2016 04:59 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

>>> Tired of telemarketing calls so I just ordered this from Amazon:
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00U1PPWDO/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>>>
>>>
>>> Anybody know if I just did something stupid?
>>>
>>> So far I haven't received any telemarketing calls on my cell, but we get
>>> dozens/day on the "landline" phone, mostly of the 'dead air' variety.
>>
>> in the uk marketing companies are regularly fined for making too many
>> silent calls. We also have an opt-out system which kinda works.
>
> The US has a "Do Not Call List" -- you add the phone number and possibly
> the name of the offender via the web, and if they call you again you can
> sue them for some small amount of money (a couple of $hundred, I think).
>  So I have to spend hours filing in forms, going to court, etc.  No.
> What I want is to have the bastards put in the stocks for a couple of
> days to be pelted with garbage.  Seeing their heads on pikes would be
> better, but I probably couldn't have that.

I hardly ever get a spam call from the same number twice. For most of 
them the CallerID shows simply City, State and Number (one or two have 
had a Canadian number), allegedly from places where we know nobody. We 
let the answering machine answer, but they don't leave a message and 
just before they hang up we hear "Goodbye" -- always in the same voice, 
now matter what the phony number was. We assume they are the "lower your 
credit card interest rate" crooks, but we don't have their name, and the 
numbers are phony, so there's not much point in reporting them to the Do 
Not Call people.

I've had one or two "Windows Support" crooks call me, and I might be 
inclined to string them along and waste their time next time, but the 
last time one called it was as we were about to leave on vacation, and I 
just told the guy he was a liar and a crook and hung up.

That was for our VoIP "landline" (via Charter Cable and an Obihai box). 
On the cellphone I have the "Should I Answer?" app, which connects with 
a database of known spam callers and blocks their calls within one ring.

Perce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32633

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 19:08:51 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
<Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote:

>
>> The US has a "Do Not Call List" -- you add the phone number and possibly
>> the name of the offender via the web, and if they call you again you can
>> sue them for some small amount of money (a couple of $hundred, I think).
>>  So I have to spend hours filing in forms, going to court, etc.  No.
>> What I want is to have the bastards put in the stocks for a couple of
>> days to be pelted with garbage.  Seeing their heads on pikes would be
>> better, but I probably couldn't have that.
>
>I hardly ever get a spam call from the same number twice. For most of 
>them the CallerID shows simply City, State and Number (one or two have 
>had a Canadian number), allegedly from places where we know nobody. We 
>let the answering machine answer, but they don't leave a message and 
>just before they hang up we hear "Goodbye" -- always in the same voice, 

I get that one once in a while.   As much as I hate them, I give them
credit for saying Goodbye and letting me know they're done.   (When I
get a wrong number, I tell the machine it's a wrong number.) 

>now matter what the phony number was. We assume they are the "lower your 
>credit card interest rate" crooks, but we don't have their name, and the 
>numbers are phony, so there's not much point in reporting them to the Do 
>Not Call people.
>
>I've had one or two "Windows Support" crooks call me, and I might be 

My brother's had them once or twice, and I've had them 3 times.   I
ask them if their mother knows they steal for money. (I don't call it
"for a living" because that sounds too respectable.)  Most use
profanity and hang up before I can reply, but one guy spent ten
minutes denying he was a thief.  I figured out that he meant the guy
who would call me later was  the theif, and I refused to accept that
he didn't know what happened next.   

>inclined to string them along and waste their time next time, but the 
>last time one called it was as we were about to leave on vacation, and I 
>just told the guy he was a liar and a crook and hung up.

That's good!

>That was for our VoIP "landline" (via Charter Cable and an Obihai box). 
>On the cellphone I have the "Should I Answer?" app, which connects with 
>a database of known spam callers and blocks their calls within one ring.

Hmm.     "Should I answer?"

>Perce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32643

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 19:08:51 -0400, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

> I hardly ever get a spam call from the same number twice. For most of 
> them the CallerID shows simply City, State and Number (one or two have 
> had a Canadian number),

I often get repeat spam calls. A recent such is from 818-206-4554, ID-ed as
Winnetka, CA, several times a day, several days running. Another (utterly
spoofed) one is 177-049-6489, ID-ed as Unknown Name. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32644

In article <1dqdpn1lw5l7o$.seq581tioqew$.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> 
> I often get repeat spam calls. A recent such is from 818-206-4554, ID-ed as
> Winnetka, CA, several times a day, several days running. 

block it after the first instance and there will never be a second call.

> Another (utterly
> spoofed) one is 177-049-6489, ID-ed as Unknown Name. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp

177 is an invalid area code and 049 is an invalid exchange. such calls
can easily be prevented entirely by blocking all invalid numbers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32668

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 06:07:42 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <1dqdpn1lw5l7o$.seq581tioqew$.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
> <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I often get repeat spam calls. A recent such is from 818-206-4554, ID-ed as
>> Winnetka, CA, several times a day, several days running. 
> 
> block it after the first instance and there will never be a second call.

That's more bother than just not answering :-) .
 
>> Another (utterly
>> spoofed) one is 177-049-6489, ID-ed as Unknown Name. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp
> 
> 177 is an invalid area code and 049 is an invalid exchange. ...

Bingo again :-) !

> ... such calls
> can easily be prevented entirely by blocking all invalid numbers.

That too is more bother than just not answering :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32670

On 07/24/2016 01:17 AM, tlvp wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 06:07:42 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I often get repeat spam calls. A recent such is from 818-206-4554, ID-ed as
>>> Winnetka, CA, several times a day, several days running.
>>
>> block it after the first instance and there will never be a second call.
>
> That's more bother than just not answering :-) .

The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.  Looking at the 
number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on 
an unfamiliar number.  Deciding that if it's the doctor he'll call back 
(WRONG!) and then clicking the phone on and off again.  Not as annoying 
as waiting for the four rings before the answering machine comes on.  I 
could set it to two, but that doesn't give me enough time to get to the 
phone sometimes.

I've known people who can NOT pick up a ringing phone.  I don't 
understand them.

So far a couple of friends have called and been whitelisted on the 
Sentry device.  No spam yet that we know of, but it's still early.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    All the toilets were stolen out of the police station.
    The police have nothing to go on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32679

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:13:29 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

> The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.

Distraction? I'm too deaf to hear it when I'm asleep or out shopping. And I
let them go to the TAD when I'm at home, answer only if it's someone I know
trying to leave me a message.

> ... Looking at the 
> number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on 
> an unfamiliar number.

Again (yes, cut'n'paste, sorry): I let them go to the TAD when I'm at home,
answer only if it's someone I know trying to leave me a message.

HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32695

On 07/24/2016 01:23 PM, tlvp wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:13:29 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.
>
> Distraction? I'm too deaf to hear it when I'm asleep or out shopping. And I
> let them go to the TAD when I'm at home, answer only if it's someone I know
> trying to leave me a message.
>
>> ... Looking at the
>> number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on
>> an unfamiliar number.

So far no telemarketer calls at all.  They must be observing Sunday. 
Now I WANT one of them to call...

> Again (yes, cut'n'paste, sorry): I let them go to the TAD when I'm at home,
> answer only if it's someone I know trying to leave me a message.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================
Election 2008:
There's never been a better time to vote libertarian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32733

On 07/24/2016 07:24 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 07/24/2016 01:23 PM, tlvp wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:13:29 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.
>>
>> Distraction? I'm too deaf to hear it when I'm asleep or out shopping. And I
>> let them go to the TAD when I'm at home, answer only if it's someone I know
>> trying to leave me a message.
>>
>>> ... Looking at the
>>> number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on
>>> an unfamiliar number.
>
> So far no telemarketer calls at all.  They must be observing Sunday.
> Now I WANT one of them to call...
>
>> Again (yes, cut'n'paste, sorry): I let them go to the TAD when I'm at home,
>> answer only if it's someone I know trying to leave me a message.

It's filtered out 3 calls today.  Didn't ring.  The only people who rang 
were our friends.  The anonymous and dead air people withered on the 
vine.  So far so good!


-- 
Cheers, Bev
   'Politics' comes from an ancient Greek word meaning
   'many blood-sucking leeches.'       -- Mark Russell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32758

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:14:47 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 07/24/2016 07:24 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 07/24/2016 01:23 PM, tlvp wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:13:29 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.
>>>
>>> Distraction? I'm too deaf to hear it when I'm asleep or out shopping. And I
>>> let them go to the TAD when I'm at home, answer only if it's someone I know
>>> trying to leave me a message.
>>>
>>>> ... Looking at the
>>>> number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on
>>>> an unfamiliar number.
>>
>> So far no telemarketer calls at all.  They must be observing Sunday.
>> Now I WANT one of them to call...
>>
>>> Again (yes, cut'n'paste, sorry): I let them go to the TAD when I'm at home,
>>> answer only if it's someone I know trying to leave me a message.
>
>It's filtered out 3 calls today.  Didn't ring.  The only people who rang 
>were our friends.  The anonymous and dead air people withered on the 
>vine.  So far so good!

How does it know who to wither? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32770

On 7/26/2016 4:29 AM, Micky wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:14:47 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/24/2016 07:24 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 07/24/2016 01:23 PM, tlvp wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:13:29 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.
>>>> Distraction? I'm too deaf to hear it when I'm asleep or out shopping. And I
>>>> let them go to the TAD when I'm at home, answer only if it's someone I know
>>>> trying to leave me a message.
>>>>
>>>>> ... Looking at the
>>>>> number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on
>>>>> an unfamiliar number.
>>> So far no telemarketer calls at all.  They must be observing Sunday.
>>> Now I WANT one of them to call...
>>>
>>>> Again (yes, cut'n'paste, sorry): I let them go to the TAD when I'm at home,
>>>> answer only if it's someone I know trying to leave me a message.
>> It's filtered out 3 calls today.  Didn't ring.  The only people who rang
>> were our friends.  The anonymous and dead air people withered on the
>> vine.  So far so good!
> How does it know who to wither?

A blacklist, probably.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32782

On 07/26/2016 01:29 AM, Micky wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:14:47 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 07/24/2016 07:24 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 07/24/2016 01:23 PM, tlvp wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:13:29 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.
>>>>
>>>> Distraction? I'm too deaf to hear it when I'm asleep or out shopping. And I
>>>> let them go to the TAD when I'm at home, answer only if it's someone I know
>>>> trying to leave me a message.
>>>>
>>>>> ... Looking at the
>>>>> number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on
>>>>> an unfamiliar number.
>>>
>>> So far no telemarketer calls at all.  They must be observing Sunday.
>>> Now I WANT one of them to call...
>>>
>>>> Again (yes, cut'n'paste, sorry): I let them go to the TAD when I'm at home,
>>>> answer only if it's someone I know trying to leave me a message.
>>
>>It's filtered out 3 calls today.  Didn't ring.  The only people who rang
>>were our friends.  The anonymous and dead air people withered on the
>>vine.  So far so good!
>
> How does it know who to wither?

All anonymous calls.  (Ooma already did that;  our friends use *62 
before dialing our number.)
All calls whose originators don't press 1 to be connected.
Calls previously marked "reject"
Calls from the list of known telemarketers

You can whitelist people manually, but it's a monumental nuisance using 
only up/down and ENTER buttons.  Crazy people would do that.  If people 
press 1 they're automatically whitelisted, but we can blacklist the call 
if it turns out to be a telemarketer.

Most of the telemarketers are local businesses who want to remodel our 
house.  The message says "If you're a telemarketer, please put this 
number on your do-not-call list and hang up..."  I guess they figure -- 
rightly -- that this means them.

One of our friends who anonymizes his number gets more telemarketing 
calls than we do.  He just lets them go to the answering machine.  I 
don't understand how he can tolerate the 4 rings and then the answering 
message, but he can.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
     "Tip: Place your houseplants in front of the television during
     the next presidential debate and watch how leafy they get."
                                                 -- Scott Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web