WARNING: Calling back using *67 does NOT necessarily hide your caller ID from ANYONE
- Sami replies to Resident47| 3 repliesIt just happened to me when I called the company Wayfair...
- Kevin replies to SamiWas it a toll free number?
- JMz replies to Capt Callblockfunny. The bite will heal. The cut will mend. The candy will taste good. The scammers will harass you forever.
- Kat replies to Sami| 1 replyWHAT just happened to you when you called the company Wayfair?
- Resident47 replies to KatHe realized with a forehead smack that he should have had a glass of V8 vegetable juice.
- post pending moderator approval
- post pending moderator approval
- post pending moderator approval
- Jimmy P replies to Resident47| 2 repliesI’m sorry to tell you this three years late but even in 2017 using *67 is circumvented by those that are not the phone company or law enforcement. All of those bozo’s that are harassing us with unwanted calls who bounce their unwanted calls across the continents to hide their identities as well as the kid hacking from his bedroom on multiple phones paid for by his parents who doesn’t ever move out waiting for his parents to croak can read your number no matter what. They can also tell you your social security number, license number, D.O.B., or anything else pertaining to your or your families lives. It’s scary to think about but our security has been totally breached.
- Resident47 replies to Jimmy PI wasn't disputing the topic theme almost three years ago or this month. I was asking "Dawn" to defend her "rule of thumb" assertions, which naturally never happened.
- MikeHuntleton replies to Jimmy P
I'm sorry to tell you this, but without anything more than a summary of "how you see things" happening, it doesn't help to enforce your claims without some sort of Article or detailed explanation of HOW they can circumvent the *67 .Quote:I’m sorry to tell you this three years late but even in 2017 using *67 is circumvented by those that are not the phone company or law enforcement. - NotKnown replies to DeletedMedia| 5 repliesDeletedMedia, you referred to "pre-dial". There is no such thing. One either dials or doesn't dial. There is no other status of dialing. One can first dial, but it is still 'dialing'. The prefix 'pre' means "before", as in a sports pre-game show that comes on before the sports event that it announces. By your use, you wrote "before dial", which means that dialing hasn't yet taken place. Just like the repeated bad usage of "irregardless" that people continue to use, repeating the improper use of "pre" doesn't make it correct.
- Tygerkat replies to NotKnown| 1 replyKinda like people who say to "pre-heat" an oven. You can't "before heat" an oven. 😺
- Mike-in-MD replies to TygerkatThat is out of context because in the case of an oven, most cooking instructions state to "pre-heat" the oven to the needed temperature before placing the food in the oven. A very few recipes call for the food to be placed in a cold oven. So in terms of cooking instructions "pre-heat the oven" is a valid usage.
- MikeHuntleton replies to NotKnown
If you normally only dial 10 digits to make a call, then dialing *82 before them would be in the same context, by your own explanation, therefore saying "pre-dial" *82 would be correct.Quote:The prefix 'pre' means "before",.......
Strange to put all that effort into it, but doesn't seem like you gave it too much thought.
Reply to topic