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9, issue 425, message 5 of 6 In article David Lesher writes: - Telephone companies argue that classifying a - number as unpublished means only that it will not - appear in a directory or be given out by operators - People who want to safeguard their numbers can do so - by not calling.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)