Re: Got questions..We got flimflam

From: James B. Reynolds <jbreynol_at_ix.netcom.com>
Date: 1996/11/05
Message-ID: <55m6v3$c13_at_sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>#1/1


George,

I don't know. I give up. Do you mean the vitamin, the language, or the alphabet letter.? You cross posted to as many groups as he/she did.

In <55lur3$8l_at_lon-news-svc-3.compuserve.co.uk> grs_at_liyorkrd.li.co.uk (George) writes:
>
>systemic_at_seanet.com (Systemic) wrote:
>
>> > By definition a (900) number has to have Caller ID or a similar
 way to
>> >know who is calling. (900) numbers bill not only the call itself
 but
>> >also the cost of whatever service is being sold to the phone bill
 of the
>> >calling number, which requires that the call be traced
 automatically.  

>> > So "psychics" on (900) lines can very easily have access to a
 computer
>> >database which, based on phone number returned by the Caller ID,
 know
>> >enough basics to do a good job of fakery.
 

>> Does that mean that if you did a *69 (the code in my area) to make
 the call
>> private (ie; caller id. returns a "private" on the screen rather
 than the
>> number) that they couldn't bill you? Of course, I guess then they
 wouldn't
>> accept your call anyway.
 

>> I think maybe I should set up a 900 line for 900 line addicts. Heh.
 I bet
>> you could make a killing off of that.
>
>What the fuck has this got to do with C !!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>....message ends.....
>
Received on Tue Nov 05 1996 - 00:00:00 CET

Original text of this message