Rick Smith - please contact me (off-list)

Rick,
This w, J4 processed your two documents on:

- Accept/Display (and "line devices")
and
- EXTERNAL for non-01 levels

I need to work with you on the follow-up - but don't know what email ID I sh
ould
use.  Please contact me off-list.

For the list,

J4 *will* "fix" the issue of referring to "hardware" or "line" devices for
Accept/Display
and
J4 did find a rule in the '85 Standard that ACCIDENTALLY got dropped from th
e
'02 Standard. This rule explicitly limited EXTERNAL to 01-levels (for
Working-Storage records).

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:MNHAg.300541$vu2.276294@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> Rick,
>   This w, J4 processed your two documents on:
>
>   - Accept/Display (and "line devices")
>         and
>   - EXTERNAL for non-01 levels
>
> I need to work with you on the follow-up - but don't know what email ID I
should
> use.  Please contact me off-list.

Done.

For the record, I did unblock my e-mail address for one
day after sending the document on the EXTERNAL clause
to Don S. During that 24-hour period, I received one message
from Don S. and 88 unwanted e-mails, or, by extraoplation,
30,000+ unwanted e-mails per year. My previous estimate
was a mere 10,000+.

Rick Smith wrote:
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:MNHAg.300541$vu2.276294@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> 
>
> should
> 
>
>
> Done.
>
> For the record, I did unblock my e-mail address for one
> day after sending the document on the EXTERNAL clause
> to Don S. During that 24-hour period, I received one message
> from Don S. and 88 unwanted e-mails, or, by extraoplation,
> 30,000+ unwanted e-mails per year. My previous estimate
> was a mere 10,000+.

Rick,

Depending upon what e-mail tool you are using. (I'm using Mozilla's
Thunderbird). I've got the address above for newsgroups and use a
different address for personal e-mail.

I still get the odd 'financial' or 'pharmaceutical' spams creeping
through. But for the most part I've avoided that painful 100 a day.
(Both spam groups probably result from any googling I do).

I certainly agree *we* shouldn't have to protect ourselves - anybody
want to volunteer for a firing squad if we catch the bastards ?


Jimmy

"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:RPNBg.335200$IK3.230922@pd7tw1no...
> Rick Smith wrote:
[snip] 
[snip]
> I still get the odd 'financial' or 'pharmaceutical' spams creeping
> through. But for the most part I've avoided that painful 100 a day.
> (Both spam groups probably result from any googling I do).
>
> I certainly agree *we* shouldn't have to protect ourselves - anybody
> want to volunteer for a firing squad if we catch the bastards ?

I was in psychotherapy for a 9 year period. During
most of that time (7 years), I could not have a telephone
because phone solicitation caused more stress than I
could handle. As I now understand the circumstances
of that time, I was experiencing an unidentified feeling
of being abused and phone solicitation added an
identified abuse; that is, an abuse I could stop by not
having a telephone. Unwanted e-mail is a similar form
of abuse.

A few ws ago, when I was trying to start work on
the defect report for J4 on the EXTERNAL clause, I
received, in one day, 5 unwanted phone calls. It took
me about two ws to recover. As I thought about
(obsessed over) the problem, it occurred to me that
all such acts are predatory (living by plunder, exploitation,
etc.) through exploitation (utilization for profit, selfish
utilization) of the victims property to carry out the act.
Also, I was able to ascertain that there is no question
of freedom of speech, since, in every case, the predator
is a third party, an interloper (one who thrusts oneself
into the affairs of others).

By "third party" I mean any individual for which the use
of "property" was never intended; that is, I do not have
a residence for the purpose of door-to-door solicitation,
nor do I have a telephone for the purpose of phone
solicitation, nor do I have an e-mail account for the
purpose of e-mail solicitation, virus attacks, etc. These
are particularly troublesome because they tend to
require immediate attention. Junk mail deserves special
consideration since, in the U.S, street addresses are
assigned by government and government is paid to
deliver the junk; thus government is "aiding and abetting"
the predators. By contrast, commercial radio and
television are not predatory since the property involved
is intended to receive commercial broadcasts.

The goal that seems to be most fitting is to simply stop
the predatory practices. To that end, making laws to
prohibit the acts, with increasing force to ensure
compliance, seems appropriate. Should any just not
get the message an extended jail term might be more
fitting than execution.

Perhaps, to some, I may seem too sensitive about this
issue; but it genuinely affects my ability to work and to
do such things as supporting J4 and the COBOL
standard. When I, once again, find some peace, I intend
to submit editorial comments to J4 concerning the
SELECT WHEN clause and the use of plural versus
singular forms in rules, which use seems inconsistent to
me.

Rick Smith wrote:

>  I
> received, in one day, 5 unwanted phone calls.

I take pride in the fact that I have had an insurance salesman hang up
on me !!

The usual way that I deal with calls is to get them to start on their
spiel and then just put the phone on the desk while I get on with
something useful.  If they ask for me by name I sometimes say 'He's in
the garden I'll go and get them for you", put phone on desk, carry on
with work.  Sometimes they ring back and apologise for not having
waited long enough and can I get him from the garden. Another long
pointless wait coming up.

My aim is to get on everyone's 'black list'.

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155006022.628738.198890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rick Smith wrote:
> 
[snip]
> My aim is to get on everyone's 'black list'.

Federal (U.S) and state (Florida) law, as I understand it,
require the maintenance of a "Do not call list", for interstate
and intrastate calls, respectively. After I found out about
the law, I began telling callers to add my name to their
"Do not call list". Sometimes I had to inform them that
such a list was required. Call volume dropped quite a bit
and I often go for days without any calls, at all.

But, the trend has been to use automated systems to
provide messages, then, sometimes, at the end of the
message, the "victim" is asked to press a number to be
"removed from the marketing list". Thus, they seem
intent to get around the law by not addressing the
seemingly required "Do not call list". In effect, government
set up a fence to help keep the predators out; but predators
don't always respect fences, though they may learn to
respect a sturdy cage!

Rick Smith wrote:

> Federal (U.S) and state (Florida) law, as I understand it,
> require the maintenance of a "Do not call list", for interstate
> and intrastate calls, respectively.

Unfortunately not here.

> But, the trend has been to use automated systems to
> provide messages, then,

They get to listen to my radio for half an hour. Hopefully they have a
voice activated recorder so their tape fills up.

I sympathize with you.  For me, caller-ID is a Godsend.  When the
phone rings, I look at the display to see who's calling.  If I don't
recognize the name and/or number, I simply don't answer.  After three
rings it silently goes to voice mail.  If they leave a message I
delete it.  I also signed up for a telephone company service that
requires anonymous callers to identify themselves before they can
leave a voice mail message.

Political and charitable organizations are exempt from the "do not
call" lists.  I don't want to hear those either.

With Caller-ID it soon becomes apparent who is a time-waster.  They
rarely have a name associated with the number.  They often have out of
state area codes, or 8xx area codes.  Sometimes the same number will
call every day, but usually the complete inability to reach me leads
to fewer unwanted calls.

The ones that leave messages are usually trying to sell me satellite
TV or debt consolidation loans.  Whatever they're selling, I don't
want to hear it.

With kindest regards,




Rick Smith wrote:
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1155006022.628738.198890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> 
>
> [snip]
> 
>
>
> Federal (U.S) and state (Florida) law, as I understand it,
> require the maintenance of a "Do not call list", for interstate
> and intrastate calls, respectively. After I found out about
> the law, I began telling callers to add my name to their
> "Do not call list". Sometimes I had to inform them that
> such a list was required. Call volume dropped quite a bit
> and I often go for days without any calls, at all.
>
> But, the trend has been to use automated systems to
> provide messages, then, sometimes, at the end of the
> message, the "victim" is asked to press a number to be
> "removed from the marketing list". Thus, they seem
> intent to get around the law by not addressing the
> seemingly required "Do not call list". In effect, government
> set up a fence to help keep the predators out; but predators
> don't always respect fences, though they may learn to
> respect a sturdy cage!
>
>
>

--
http://arnold.trembley.home.att.net/


Arnold Trembley wrote:
> I sympathize with you.  For me, caller-ID is a Godsend.  When the
> phone rings, I look at the display to see who's calling.  If I don't
> recognize the name and/or number, I simply don't answer.  After three
> rings it silently goes to voice mail.  If they leave a message I
> delete it.  I also signed up for a telephone company service that
> requires anonymous callers to identify themselves before they can
> leave a voice mail message.

I would be happy to pay for the bullets. I guess Mother Bell's
Pavlovian conditioning worked too well. When the phone rings, I want to
pick it up, thinking that when someone calls it is important. [Long
distance --- my first question used to be "Who died?"]

The only positive aspect to dealing with conscience-less predators is
that they reinforce my belief in a creator who will subject them to
eternal punishment. :-).

Now all we need is an object-oriented COBOL program that will keep the
spam out of my mail-box, the phone solicitors at bay and the clueless
wankers off my doorstep at home and at the office.

Rick Smith wrote:

>  Junk mail deserves special
> consideration since, in the U.S, street addresses are
> assigned by government and government is paid to
> deliver the junk; thus government is "aiding and abetting"
> the predators.

Slight correction: In the US, neither street names nor numbers are the
province of any agency of government. Every once in a while, a city will
change the name of a street in honor of some deceased politician, but even
that's rare. The post office and, for that matter, the fire department, have
to work with the names and numbers as they exist.

Street names are usually assigned by developers as they convert raw land and
numbering is usually done for consistency. But there's no "rule" that these
are compelled to follow. Except in Utah.