Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? Message-ID: Date: 13 Sep 89 17:51:42 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 29 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 373, message 8 of 11 In article , miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) writes: > Fine--except for one problem. What about those folks who can't afford an > answering machine? There are millions of the new "working poor" who need a > telephone for their jobs, yet barely get by on a hand-to-mouth existence. I > don't think it's fair for you and me to be able to solve our problems by > spending money, while it's an option that many people don't have. It's just > another example of how the "haves" have so many advantages over the > "have-nots". One of the nasty little realities of life, and it applies to telephone service as well, is that those with money can afford to have more than those without. To my knowledge, it has always been that way. One of my clients owns about fifteen automobiles, including some very expensive classic cars, while I drive an '85 Blazer and a motorcycle. Not really fair, is it? In this case, unlike depravation of food and shelter, the receipt of junk calls is hardly life-threatening. I know people who have their butler screen their calls, but it hasn't occurred to me to hire one for myself. Glad no one has suggested that as a solution, since as a member of the working poor, I can't afford one:-) Yes the "haves" have many advantages over the "have-nots". Else why would anyone want to become a "have"? It's also true by definition. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !