Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!ukma!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: r4@mvuxd.att.com (Richard R Grady, Jr) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: California Junk Fax Bill Message-ID: Date: 27 Oct 89 17:47:01 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Reply-To: r4@cbnews.ATT.COM (richard.r.grady..jr,54354,mv,3a018,508 960 6182) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 20 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 477, message 3 of 10 In article john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >In article , gtephx!phobos!ellisond@ >asuvax.EAS.ASU.EDU (Dell Ellison) writes: >> What if the problem of junk fax is wide-spread, BUT the 'elected >> representatives' just happen to not have the problem??? >From all evidence presented so far, nobody seems to be having a >problem. Ergo, no problem. At least it's not widespread. Whenever a law is proposed to ban junk fax, everyone who opposes the ban informs the elected representatives about his/her opposition, via an unsolicited fax (How dumb can you get?). So *only* elected representatives have a junk fax problem!!! Dick Grady r_r_grady@att.com ...!att!mvuxd!r4 The above opinions are mine, and not necessarily those of my employer.