Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!attctc!vector!telecom-gateway
From: tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Message-ID: <telecom-v09i0388m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>
Date: 18 Sep 89 10:58:11 GMT
Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US
Organization: CompuData, Inc. (DeLand)
Lines: 22
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 388, message 5 of 8

A moderator note...
) ... As a purely pragmatic thing, it just makes sense to have a phone
) in a place where you don't want to be subject to a quick, untimely
) exit. Either that, or an answering machine.

In a pig's eye, perhaps.  There is one important fact being
overlooked here: I put the instrument of the devil in for my
convenience, not that of every Tom, Dick, and Olan Mills salesman.

If the thing rings while it's not convenient for me to answer it, and
that includes meal-times as well as swimming and visits to the throne
room, it doesn't get answered.  It is senseless to be a slave to that
ringing bell, hopping to serve at the whim of any salesman able to
compose a string of digits.

If a call is important enough to really want my attention (or even
if the caller merely perceives that it is important), he may call
back later when it may be more convenient for me to answer.


 ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra attctc gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner