Bummer. I hope this gets reversed soon.

If not, keep this handy:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~egbg/counterscript.html

For those that live in the states that have do not call lists, it seems those are still legal and are working.

I personally wouldn't know, having had a cell phone as my only phone for a few years now.

edited to make it clearer to understand, my brain is fried from constant web based SAN training.

<grammar mode=nazi>
To be clear, I assume you mean that you've had only a cell phone for a few years.

What you said really means that you didn't have a cell phone prior to a few years ago.
</grammar>

<grammar mode="nazi" />

Eh? It might be the can of Stella that I just drank, but I'm not clear on what the difference is. Maybe I'm missing something.

Oh, and if we're going to be picky, attribute values should be quoted in XML and HTML .

Scratch that. On re-reading, your point is clear. His is ambiguous, but generally accepted use has it that he didn't have a cell phone prior to that point, and has had a cell phone ever since. Alternatively, he could be saying that he's always had a cell phone, and a few years ago got rid of all other types of phone.

You know, I know that, and I thought about quoting it, but I thought it would be less legible.

What our fine friend Drakino wrote is that he has had a cell phone for no more than a few years, without regard to any other phones.

What, I assume, he meant to say was that he had had no phone other than a cell phone for a few years. (And, actually, to be totally pedantic, the way I put it means that he had no other possessions at all, but I think we can infer from context that it applied only to phone ownership.)

The difference being the placement of the word ``only'' and what it modifies. Placing it before the adverbial prepositional phrase ``for a few years'' modifies that phrase, so that it limits it to mean ``for no more than a few years'' (give or take). Placing it before the noun phrase ``a cell phone'' modifies that phrase to mean ``no more than a cell phone''.

Of course, we knew what he meant, because we know that it's illegal to telemarket to a cell phone (to verb unnecessarily), but without that piece of knowledge, we can't necessarily draw that conclusion. But, in my opinion, ``you know what I mean'' isn't really a good excuse. (Nor is it one to which I'd accuse our fine friend Drakino of resorting.)

Edit: And to respond to your edit, we have different ideas of what he meant, which I think substantiates my point, unless he did, in fact, mean what you say, but then, I think, what his point was becomes nebulous.

Is it just me, or has it been a while since we had a good grammar lesson/discussion? I’ve been missing them (and have admittedly gotten a bit sloppy in recent posts).

I was just thinking the another post about how much I miss Bitt's red avatar and his grammar posts!

It is not just you. I've been trying to keep it to myself a little more. No need to point out every misspelling, etc. Only when meaning is confused, these days, I promise.

Tony C, love the link, thanks!

I was just thinking the another post about how much I miss Bitt's red avatar and his grammar posts!

You're missing a word there, or you got one wrong:"the another post" is nonsensical.

I've got an "extra" word - THE. :P

It is not just you. I've been trying to keep it to myself a little more.

Well, you don't have to spank us grammatically just to give *me* a thrill, but I will say again that I always found your "discipline" quite touching. It's the passion, man, the passion.

You'll like this:

Two days on my new job and I compose an introductory e-mail to 3 groups composing about 200 people. Following a tendency to lame, self-deprecating humor, I write something like:

"I am Jim Hogan who some of you may have already had the questionable pleasure to meet."

Then at the last minute I realize "Oh, I gotta tell 'em who I am reporting to!" and insert "reporting to Ms. Bosswoman" right after "Jim Hogan" -- without any parentheses.

<Ctrl-X> <Y> ........ Oh, fark!

Well, you don't have to spank us grammatically just to give *me* a thrill, but I will say again that I always found your "discipline" quite touching.

Agreed. Bitt, just knowing someone was watching has caused me to be more deliberate about what I say, and that has improved my communication skills quite a bit. I, at least, appreciate being corrected if it means I can ultimately become clearer in how I converse with others.

. . .and congress takes action in record time!

. .and congress takes action in record time!

Something tells me people were adding their representitives to the telemarketers phone lists, instead of taking the usual action of writing a letter.

Hey, whatever gets the job done. Game, set, match.

There was a discussion on the Today Show with some TM rep and some other droid on the other side. (Heck it might have been a Senator.) The best point raised, and the TM guy agreed with, was if you want a call from a TM don't get on the list, and then you'll get all the calls you want and the TMs won't waste time calling those that don't! That way the success rate of calls to sales would go up. Pretty damn simple, I say...
Texas has a no call list that requires payment to get on. I find it easier to ignore the landline or screen the call than to pay even more money because of the damned phone line I need to have just to get DSL. Hell, I already have to pay $5 a month to not have a long distance carrier! Deregulation, bah!

At least the texas list costs less than a buck a year, so its not *that* pricey
Since being on that list, our TM calls have evaporated.

Why would you pay NOT to have a carrier. Just get a carrier that does no monthly charge, with a 10¢ a minute rate. As long as you don't place any calls, no charge.

Just get a carrier that does no monthly charge, with a 10¢ a minute rate.
I did, when I had MCI it was a $4.95 a month just to be a customer. I eventually went with AT&T for the 10 cents a minute no monthly charge. I was burned by a roommate that ran up a $3700 phone sex bill on my long distance bill once. (The short story is here in a previous post I made about small claims court) So to be able to totally disallow LD calls from my number would be wise in some cases. And $5 a month would have been much cheaper!

less than a buck a year, so its not *that* pricey

It's the principle of the matter, that's all. I shouldn't have to pay any more on my $30/month bill.

DOH! Around here, the 900 access blocker is free. Plus it blocks all pay-per minute calls.

the 900 access blocker is free. Plus it blocks all pay-per minute calls

These were direct dialed long distance calls, I had the toll blockers in place... That is what was so weird (besides Spanky), and I don't understand how the phone sex line made money from it. The first call was to a number in Kingman AZ, then to Montserrat West Indies one minute later. There were 7 pages of calls in two weeks to the Montserrat number. Some were 1 minute a couple were 2 hours! I called the AZ number to see what it was, and it was a recording of three girls advertising the "Arizona High Country Party Line" and their new number was, guess what? The Montserrat number! I went back into my old bills and found one missing that I eventually got sent to me from Sprint. That had about 20 calls to the Kingman number from when we lived in a different place. I remember that month he paid me almost $100 for the bill and never let me see it. I never questioned it until the big bill surfaced, then I became suspicious. (Yeah I'm quick sometimes...) So I have no doubt in my mind it was Spanky and not some phone company error. .
I still have to wonder, who, besides Sprint, made money on this thing? As I recall, it was something like 2038 minutes at the average of $1.80 a minute...

Did you guys here another judge tossed roadblock into this??

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/congress.no.call/index.html

I did "hear" it but I wasn't "here" when I did.

As long as we're talking about LD rates, at my condo I used to have GE Residential Long Distance. 5.9¢ per minute with no montly fee or usage minimum. It used to be only available to GE employees, but now anyone can sign up. The only slight catch is that your bill is automatically charged to your credit card.

In my case, they were reselling me Sprint LD service, so the quality should not be in question. I guess GE just buys a ton of time from LD carriers and then resells it.

Hey, that's Bitt's job. Knock it off! :O

I don't understand how the phone sex line made money from it.

This is a fairly well known scam. The general idea is that the third-world phone company charges a significantly higher rate than their costs and gives a kickback to the phone sex line for bringing them the business.

Here's a nice reference I found with Google.