TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Jun 94 14:38:30 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 288

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pager on a Watch? (Donald J. Miller)
    Re: Pager on a Watch? (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Pager on a Watch? (D. Castillo)
    Re: Pager on a Watch? (Scott Coleman)
    Re: Pager on a Watch? (Leo Nederlof)
    Re: Pager on a Watch? (Michael D. Sullivan)
    Re: Pager on a Watch? (Dan Reifsnyder)
    Re: Pager on a Watch? (Jeffrey Rhodes)
    Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient? (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient? (Mike King)
    Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient? (Rich Padula)
    Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Carl Oppedahl)
    Re: Caller ID With a New Twist (Ross E Mitchell)
    Re: Caller ID With a New Twist (Phil Bullock)
    Re: Caller ID With a New Twist (B.J. Guillot)
    Re: Does PAT Work For US West? (Hugh Pritchard)
    Re: Does PAT Work For US West? (Ry Jones)
    Correction of Attribution - Re: What Did You Have For Dinner (G. Burditt)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax 
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    * 
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   * 
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help 
is important and appreciated.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: dmiller@crl.com (Donald J. Miller)
Subject: Re: Pager on a Watch?
Date: 15 Jun 1994 08:17:45 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060  [login: guest]


David Lawrance (d-lawrance@uiuc.edu) wrote:


> At one time, Motorola and Timex were marketting a pager built into a
> watch.  Are there still such beasts?  Who sells and who supports?

The Motorola/Timex watch was kind of large and klunky.  Lately,
however, there have been numerous commercials in the Atlanta area (and
I assume elsewhere) for pager watches made by Swatch.  The units
displayed in the commercial, at least, look as stylish as regular
Swatch watches.


Don Miller   Electronic System Products   dmiller@crl.com

------------------------------

From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Pager on a Watch?
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 14:09:22 GMT


David Lawrance said:

> At one time, Motorola and Timex were marketting a pager built into a
> watch.  Are there still such beasts?  Who sells and who supports?


Swatch makes watches like this; they are availible at the AT&T Phone
Centers.


Steve    cogorno@netcom.com

------------------------------

From: castillo@unm.edu (D. Castillo)
Subject: Re: Pager on a Watch?
Date: 15 Jun 1994 06:26:01 -0600
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


In article <telecom14.284.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, David Lawrance <d-lawrance@
uiuc.edu> wrote:

> At one time, Motorola and Timex were marketting a pager built into a
> watch.  Are there still such beasts?  Who sells and who supports?

Swatch sells them. According to one of their ads, they're available at
AT&T Phonecenters. (Haven't checked this myself, have yet to go to one
of the ATT centers, seem awfully expensive from their ads.)


castillo@hydra.unm.edu

------------------------------

From: genghis@ilces.ag.uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman)
Subject: Re: Pager on a Watch?
Date: 15 Jun 94 14:21:19 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


I once tried to track down the writwatch pager. It does exist, but
none of the paging companies around here seems to want to carry them
(I checked several). The reason is that they are apparently very
fragile.  One outfit was willing to try and order one for me. Since
they didn't have one for me to look at, I requested a brochure and
other information which I never received, promised callbacks were
never made, etc. This was both from the local paging companies as well
as Motorola itself, which manufactures the thing. After some time I
just gave up on the idea. It's a cool idea, but if it's prone to
breakage, and nobody wants to support it when it does break, the
hassle of ownership would outweigh the benefits.

I now own a standard Motorola display pager, which has been 100%
problem fee and was less than half the price of the wristwatch model.
And besides, I have a Casio Infrared controller wristwatch which I use
for A/V and Home Automation equipment; I don't want to wear two
wristwatches. ;-)


Scott Coleman    tmkk@uiuc.edu
President ASRE (American Society of Reverse Engineers)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 12:48:35 +0200
From: Leo Nederlof <lned@rc.bel.alcatel.be>
Subject: Re: Pager on a Watch?


Swatch has them. Until now I've only seen them in the shops in Switzerland, 
but I assume they will be marketed in other countries as well.

What I've seen is only one type, black, the body slightly larger than
a standard Swatch. Probably they will come up with trendy designs and
coulours shortly.  Unless nobody buys them of course ...


Leo Nederlof               Alcatel Bell Research Centre
lned@rc.bel.alcatel.be     Network Technology Group
phone: +32 3 2407613       Francis Wellesplein 1
fax:   +32 3 2409932       2018 Antwerp - Belgium

------------------------------

From: mds@access.digex.net (Michael D. Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Pager on a Watch?
Date: 15 Jun 1994 01:05:37 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


Dunno about Motorola and Timex.  Swatch markets several models of its
"Piepser" watch/pager in conjunction with BellSouth's MobileComm
paging service.


Michael D. Sullivan | INTERNET E-MAIL TO:  |also: avogadro@well.sf.ca.us
Washington, D.C.    | mds@access.digex.net |   74160.1134@compuserve.com

------------------------------

From: ryfe%interaccess@uunet.UU.NET (Dan Reifsnyder)
Subject: Re: Pager on a Watch?
Date: 15 Jun 1994 15:11:07 GMT
Organization: IAC
Reply-To: ryfe@interaccess.com


I saw an advertisement on TV this weekend ... macho guy riding his
huge motorcycle down the highway.  His watch beeps ... a number shows
up in a small lcd window on the watch ... (you see a stuffy-looking
person on a phone somewhere) ... he apparently recognizes the number
and ignores it.  This happens two or three more times, until the
person calling is a gorgeous woman ... he slams on the brakes and pulls
over to a pay phone.  Strange as it seems, the watch/pager seems to be
made by Swatch (yep, the cheesy-colored plastic watch people).  Hope
this helps.


Dan Reifsnyder   ryfe@interaccess.com 

------------------------------

From: jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Subject: Re: Pager on a Watch?
Date: 15 Jun 1994 14:53:28 GMT
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.
Reply-To: jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com


Seiko is offering the Seiko Receptor. This is an alphanumeric pager
that receives messages and time adjustments from a Stratum 1 atomic
clock (every thirty minutes). FM subcarriers are used, so some
messages get missed while in a tunnel or basement.

I get the daily stock market closing and WA lottery numbers as part of
the Information services. It is offered in Seattle, Tacoma and
Portland but should be in CA, NY and Washington, DC by year end. I
have my cellular Voice Mail Notification call my pager number so I
know when someone leaves me Voice Mail.

A six month contract is $20 activation and $8 per month. Roaming is
extra, but it will be neat to get off a plane in NY and have the time
adjusted to local time automatically!


Jeffrey Rhodes at jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com
 

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except I think you are in for a slight
disappointment. I think (am not positive) that the radio time adjustment 
only sends the seconds and minutes; those two parts of the time are
the only things absolute about the time in the USA. In other words,
whatever the hour may be in your time zone or mine, we still are at
the same number of minutes and seconds. I think when you travel around
the USA (or most of the world, if the radio signals go that far) you
will still have to advance or retard your watch manually for the
correct hour. If I stand corrected on this, let me know.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: Tim Gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient?
Date: 15 Jun 94 09:50:24 EDT


If you dial 0 and ask the local RBOC operator to dial an 800 number
for you AND the local RBOC is off of a Northern Telecom operator
system your ANI will not be passed on to the carrier the 800 number is
sent to. In order to launch the 800 database query to find out which
carrier gets the traffic the call must be sent out of the system and
back in. The way this must be done does not pass the ANI.
 
I have no knowledge of how AT&T's or anyone else's operator systems
work.
 
If you dial your interLATA carrier operator and ask them to dial the
800 number for you they will have your ANI. Whether this ANI is passed
on to the 800 number recipient is based on the interLATA carriers
switch and it's capabilities. If the call terminates back to a local
RBOC the ANI is not passed on since terminating Feature Group
protocols do not provide for ANI to be passed on a terminating leg.
 
0+800 is typically blocked from most classes of service. There is no
reason for any 800 call to be dialed in this fashion from most classes
of service and it needlessly ties up operator system capacity if
allowed.


Tim Gorman - SWBT

------------------------------

From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King)
Subject: Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient?
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 05:17:35 PDT


In TELECOM Digest, V14, #280, Ry Jones <rjones@halcyon.com> wrote:

> RJ: 0
> USW: (bong) USWEST <pause> USWest, how can I help you?
> RJ: My 8 key is broken, can you please dial a number for me?
> USW: Yes, may I have the number, area code first, please?
> RJ: 1 800 265 5328, please.
> USW: Please wait...

> ATT: Number you are dialing from please?
> RJ: 206 xxx xxxx
> ATT: Number you would like to call?
> RJ: 812 xxx xxxx
> ATT: What is your name please?
> RJ: Ry.
> ATT: Thank you. <ring>
> IP <indiana pal>: Hello?
> ATT: This is AT&T, I have a collect call from Ry. Will you accept the
> charges?
> IP: Yeah.
> ATT: Thank you.

> The number that comes out on the bill of IP is whatever I told ATT.
> ATT does *not* get the number from the USW operator. Period. I know

Are you certain that AT&T is processing this call?  I'd like to know
how they can snag a call to 1-800-COLLECT, an MCI number.

I guess it's possible that the USWest operator might be handing the
call directly to an AT&T operator without actually connecting you to
800-COLLECT, but I'd think that would be illegal. Of course, in that
scenario, I'd believe the AT&T oeprator would have your ANI information.


Mike King    mk@tfs.com

------------------------------

From: Rpadula@aol.com
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 00:28:34 EDT
Subject: Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient?


MNeary.El_Segundo@xerox.com wrote:

> In Los Angeles, one of the local TV channels has an 800 "tip" hotline.
> They repeatedly reassure viewers "you don't have do give your name".
> I'll bet that 99% of the population here thinks this means that their call

> can be anonymous.

Well, here's a better one.  This Sunday's issue of {Parade Magazine}
(June 12) has a big debate on decriminalizing marijuana use. Naturally, 
they are conducting an opinion poll on a 900 number (charge is 75
cents).  However, one of the questions is "How often have you used
marijuana?"

Gee, I wonder where THAT data will end up?


Rich

------------------------------

From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion
Date: 15 Jun 1994 18:13:13 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


In <telecom14.283.3@eecs.nwu.edu> lailert@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (Supak
Lailert "spk") writes:

> Sam Spens Clason (d92-sam@misfits.nada.kth.se) wrote:

>> How big a part of all calling card frauds could be avoided if the PIN
>> wasn't actually printed on the card?!

>> So, stop printing the PIN on calling cards, that would not make them
>> as easely used if stolen or just glimpsed at.

> As I called MCI early this week to request for a new calling card,
> they give me an option not to have the PIN printed on my card. Nice
> move, MCI.

Huh?  I memorize my card number.  Then it does not matter what is or
is not written on it since I don't carry the card.  Why would any one
carry the card around?

If you feel you *must* have something with you carrying the number,
why the card?  Again, I don't get it.  Why not write the number on
something else, so at least it is not immediately recognizable as a
telephone calling card number.  And maybe change one of the digits or
something, in a way you can easily remember to undo.

In <telecom14.283.2@eecs.nwu.edu> jmadams@freenet.scri.fsu.edu (John
Adams) writes:

> The problem, or angle, is that a crook can stand at one payphone and
> simply watch what numbers you press on the keypad.  Perhaps this easy
> tactic is the reason for the wave of "voice cards" (a la Sprint) where
> you speak the name of a preprogrammed voice sample/digit sequence to
> place a call?

Yes, I think you are right about Sprint's reason for this.

At Pennsylvania Station in New York City, all the Nynex pay phones
have a metal shroud around the keypad, making it *very* difficult for
someone to shoulder-surf.  I expect this will become commonplace in
busy places.

All the more reason to get 800 numbers that terminate at the places
you call often.  (You don't have to be the telephone customer at the
terminating end; I have one to call my Internet provider, who has only
a 212 access number, for example.)  If a surfer sees the 800 number
they will not get much benefit from it.

Portions excerpted from The Phone Book from Consumer Reports.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW     Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY    voice 212-777-1330  

------------------------------

From: rem@world.std.com (Ross E Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Caller ID With a New Twist
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 21:14:27 GMT


Along with a professor from Clark University, I have written an
article for MIT's Technology Review about a solution to telephone
privacy issues such as those raised by Caller ID.  The service to be
offered by US West appears to offer all of the features we recommend
under a general privacy theory which we have dubbed "Dynamic
Negotiation."

The guiding principle of Dynamic Negotiation is that individual users
of the phone system should determine the extent to which they wish to
sacrifice their privacy in a dynamic and interactive fashion.
Per-line blocking is the default, with selective unblocking available.
Per-call blocking is available for users desiring to change from the
per-line default but retain the option to selectively block.

At the same time, Anonymous Call Reject is available as a free option.
Any calls which are rejected route to an instructional message on how
the call can be completed.  (There is no charge to the calling party
and the called party's phone, of course, does not even ring.)

This approach solves everyone's privacy concerns: called parties can
ensure that they are not disturbed by people who do not choose to
identify themselves; callers need not take any special action to
protect their privacy when calling, but have the option to release
their numbers at will in order to complete their call, or to change
their default to release except when explicitly blocked.  With the
per-line blocking default, callers do not release their numbers
without knowledge and consent, since they must take an affirmative
action to enable number release.  The message provided when calling a
number which rejects blocked-number calls provides an instantaneous
and effective training mechanism for the uniformed caller.  We also
recommend Call Trace to permit capture of harrassing caller numbers to
parties who have chosen to accept all calls, regardless of privacy bit
setting.

In our article we call for federal regulation of Caller ID, but simply
in order to permit the creation of a level playing field.  In our
view, government must not determine for us the appropriate level of
privacy protection, but must mandate systems which permit us to do
that for ourselves, just as we have always done in non-electronic
interaction.

I'm delighted that at least one phone company has seen the valid
privacy concerns raised on both sides of this issue, and I would
appreciate your comments concerning Dynamic Negotiation.  Assuming I
can get approval from MIT, I'd be happy to post the final article when
it is ready for publication.


Ross Mitchell - Systems Consultant  - rem@world.std.com
Newton, Massachusetts   Tel: (617) 965-7010    Fax: (617) 630-0024

------------------------------

From: pbullock@xmission.com (Phil Bullock)
Subject: Re: Caller ID With a New Twist
Date: 15 Jun 1994 11:07:44 -0600
Organization: XMission Public Access Internet (801-539-0900)


Kevin Bluml (kevin@gath.cray.com) wrote:

> US West in Minneapolis/St. Paul area has a interesting version of the
> Caller ID bag of services. It seems to handle many of the previously
> noted concerns fairly well - Here is a synopsis:

[Deleted to conserve space; list of custom calling features was listed].

> All in all seems to be a good combination of features.

This same system was turned on in Utah June 7, 1994.  So far it seems
to be working fine.

------------------------------

From: st1r8@elroy.uh.edu (B.J. Guillot)
Subject: Re: Caller ID With a New Twist
Date: 15 Jun 1994 17:31:00 CDT
Organization: University of Houston


In article <telecom14.282.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, kevin@gath.cray.com (Kevin
Bluml) writes...

> Call Trace                  - $1.00/use (For Harassing/Obscene calls - Info
>                                         forwarded to US West Security for
>                                         future use - Can't be blocked)

In Houston (SW Bell), Call Trace originally was $1/month with a charge
of $8.00/use.  Then, they switched it so that it was free/month but
with a charge of $10.00/use.  We just got Caller ID two weeks ago, so
I don't know if that makes any difference or not, but it appears that
Houston is being charged 10 times more than we sould be.

Oh, and we actually tried using it once to see how it worked.

Get this ... SW Bell said that they cannot do ANYTHING with the
information obtained from Call Trace UNTIL there are at least *THREE*
traces done back to the same number.

In other words, it would cost you $30.00 to do what you might be able
to do for $1.00 in your area.


Regards,

B.J. Guillot ... Houston, Texas USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Call Trace' is a complete ripoff service
which is not needed at all. Furthermore, whether or not telco can legally
charge you to trace and stop people harassing you is open to debate. If
you are getting that type of phone call simply notify the Annoyance Call
Bureau at telco. You *do* have to cooperate with them, and that usually
means that prior to beginning any sort of trace or investigation you will
need to sign a form which (a) agrees that the results of the trace are
to be turned over directly to the police by telco, and (b) that you agree
without any conditions attached to prosecute whoever is responsible, and
(c) that you will not discuss the trap on your line with *anyone under
any conditions* while telco is conducting the investigation. That means
you do not tell co-workers, you do not tell roomates or lovers, you do
not tell other family members not living there and already aware of it,
etc. It is well established that most harrassing calls (ring your number
and hang up without speaking, etc) are from persons you know at least
casually, if not better than that. Telco will not serve as your private
detective agency in this regard. If you wish to have this invasion of
your privacy and the harassment stopped, they'll help you stop it alright;
but no playing games in the process. 

My personal belief, backed by what a couple of attornies have said to me
is that telco's contract with you for the service entitles you to the
peaceful and undisturbed use of what you are paying for. You do not have
to pay extra (ie some fee for each use of 'Call Trace') in order to have
peace and quiet in your household. You are already paying telco for a
service alleged to be in good working order.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: Hugh Pritchard <0006348214@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: Does PAT Work for USWest?
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 12:04:00 GMT


On 10 Jun 1994 21:59:51 GMT, rjones@chinook.halcyon.com (Ry Jones)
wrote:

> OK ... I think PAT is a Bellcore dude! Now when I do the 0 trick to
> turn off ANI on collect calls, 1 800 collect functions correctly.
> (ANI *is* passed) ...

Pat has no time.  In a response to a question from Lynne Gregg (Digest
#283, "How Many Readers Are There of This Digest?"), Pat admits he
spends five hours a day on the Digest, in addition to his day job.
And how is Bellcore involved?  Bellcore is neither an LEC nor an IXC.

Pat, in that same Note, continues, "My single biggest drop-off point
on the mailing list is mcimail.com, where I (yesterday) delivered the
Digest to 78 names. ... Then of course there is Usenet, and the
comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup."

So, maybe an MCI employee or stock owner among all those thousands of
readers saw Ry's posting, and brought it to the attention of the
1-800-COLLECT people.  (Ry had mis-identified the 1-800-285-5328
[1-800-COLLECT] operators as "ATT"; 1-800-COLLECT is an MCI service.)

> HOWEVER, if I have the 0 operator dial the oncor 800 operator, I am
> still able to fool them.

What is an "oncor" 800 operator?


Hugh Pritchard, Smoke N' Mirrors, Inc., hugh@snm.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, for my full time job I am a
shill for the telcos. My assignment is to post messages on Usenet and
various BBS's and commercial services in such a way as to spread Hate
and Discontent among the other participants. I post messages about
measured service and stuff like that, getting the others to argue and
fuss among themselves. The more they argue and fuss with me about
measured service, etc, the more they stay on the phone, thus the more
they pay for a phone bill each month.

Once a month the telcos scrutinize the phone bills of modem users. They
send the bills to some agency in the far east for review and analysis,
just as that dude explained in comp.dcom.telecom.tech the other day.  His
technical analysis of what happens was brilliant and right on the mark. For 
every hour of time the subscriber spends connected to Usenet as a result of 
something I posted, the telcos give me a commission. The more Hate and
Discontent I can spread on Usenet in a month's time, the bigger my
commission for that month. I'll tell you, getting that big fight going
on Usenet about a year ago regards the establishment of c.d.t.t. made
me quite wealthy.  They give me an extra premium if I say something
that is an Outright Lie, and of course there is a yearly bonus for any
technical inaccuracies which appear in the Digest itself; that's why you
see so many of them here, and never see any in c.d.t.t.

By the by, an Oncor 800 operator is an operator for the Oncor Long Distance
Company, a fine established firm with a reputation similar to that of
AT&T (back in 1905).   <grin> ... PAT]

------------------------------

From: rjones@coho.halcyon.com (Ry Jones)
Subject: Re: Does PAT Work For USWest?
Date: 15 Jun 1994 00:29:56 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.


Ry Jones (rjones@chinook.halcyon.com) wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you go entirely through a manual
> operator you are still able to defraud them, eh?  PAT]

Nope ... no fraud. Until 05 31 94, I worked for the uber-SB that
provided Oncor with their network access, etc. Oncor is one of the
biggest independents ... and still, everyone spells it "encore". No,
no, Oncor.

------------------------------

From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Correction of Attribution - Re: What Did You Have for Dinner
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 03:43:28 GMT


Dear Mr. Moderator:

How the heck did my name show up on the article quoted below?  It
seems to have been written by Paul A. Lee, and the first I heard of it
was just now when I spotted my name.

     Gordon L. Burditt
     sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

In article <telecom14.271.17@eecs.nwu.edu>,
Gordon Burditt <gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org> wrote:
>In TELECOM Digest Volume 14 Issue 264, our Editor wrote (in part):
> 
>> Why the two most recent well-known cannibals in the USA both came from
>> Wisconsin -- within fifty miles or so of each other -- I do not 
>> know. Maybe it is something in the atomosphere.

>As a relatively recent transplant to the Milwaukee area, I'm prompted
>to offer this hypothesis: Maybe these two guys were driven mad by the
>*taxes* here in Wisconsin (the highest in the country, according to a
>1992 survey).  Perhaps the "ultimate eating disorder" could be one of
>the results of the high tax rate. After all, I've seen widespread
>sociopathic behavior in the way people here _drive_ ...

>(I hope I can forfend being flamed by hundreds of Wisconsin natives by
>emphasizing that most of the folks here are as genial, friendly, and
>helpful as any I've met anywhere ... as long as you keep them out of
>their cars!)

>Paul A. Lee                    Voice  414 357-1409
>Telecommunications Analyst       FAX  414 357-1450
>Woolworth Corporation        CompuServe  70353,566
>INTERNET  </DD.ID=JES2CAOF.UEDCM09/@SMX.sprint.com>


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, sorry about that!  Seems those
danged '>' marks got out of synch again. You had commented in this thread
I think (was it the part about the Packer Grill in Boulder?) and somehow
Mr. Lee was careless in his attributions when he followed up later in the
thread. Then when I ran it here, the digest-making software did something
inappropriate to it also. So, let this be an official apology; you did
not say what was attributed to you in that thread which for some reason
won't go away.   PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #288
******************************

