Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway
From: kaufman@neon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: C&P Class, With a Thought
Message-ID: 
Date: 3 Oct 89 01:59:22 GMT
Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US
Reply-To: "Marc T. Kaufman" 
Organization: Stanford University, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 31
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 425, message 5 of 6

In article  David Lesher  writes:

-    Telephone companies argue that classifying a
-    number as unpublished means only that it will not
-    appear in a directory or be given out by operators
-    People who want to safeguard their numbers can do so
-    by not calling.

>Which brings out the reason for my submission. It is no secret
>that the District region has a number of government agencies
>that, shall we say, maintain low profiles.

>Now while nothing classified is discussed on the (so-called)
>black phone, how happy are these folks going to be on the ID
>question?

Boy, does that bring back memories!  A LONG time ago I got a phone call, out
of the blue, from someone who seemingly wanted to recruit me for a job.  They
gave me a number to call back, but wouldn't tell me who they were.  I called
the operator, played innocent, and asked her to tell me who the number
belonged to.

She called back several minutes later and said: "This is very strange.  Its a
new line, but there is no reverse listing, and the card (for the number) has
been removed from the file.  I called the number and asked them who they
were... and they got very angry!" (quotation approximated)

I didn't take the job.

Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)