"palmer.william" <palmer.william@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:HCnQb.15164$oP7.8328@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Last year we had an interesting discussion of
> caller ID, including its good and bad points.
> At that time, I also explained my new "no
> blind pickups" policy, which was adopted
> as the result of my belief that answering a
> phone call in one's home when not knowing
> who the caller is, is passe (at least, unless
> that has to be done for business purposes).
> My view on that has not changed. I am still
> a "no blind pickups" type of guy.
>
> The news is that I got rid of my caller ID.
>
> It worked about fifty percent of the time.
> I won't bother to explain the several reasons
> for that, because I think most readers
> already know them. Forget the reasons/
> excuses, though. Just ask yourself, what
> other service would you pay for if it only
> worked fifty percent of time? Your
> electricity? Your water?
>
> It wasn't the small fee. It is that I just got
> tired of being played for a sap.
>
> I gave my caller ID the boot and I have
> never regretted it. If they ever come up
> with one that can't be spoofed and works
> one-hundred percent of the time, I will
> consider subscribing to the service
> again.
>
> One thing has not changed though. I
> am still a "no blind pick ups" person.
> I just use the plain old fa****oned
> answering machine. If I don't hear
> the right voices, I don't pick up the
> phone. My friends and family are
> aware of the policy, and it does not
> bother them at all, now that they are
> used to it.
>
> And my systems is just about spoof-
> proof. I mean, how many net loonies
> are going to locate my friends
> or family members and do a successful
> imitation of their voices simply to pester
> li'l ol me?...
>
>
> the alt.genius.bill-palmer
> "I don't run with the herd, I FLAME the herd."
>
>
|
