misc.consumers.frugal-living - 26 new messages in 4 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Restore/revive worn windshield wiper blades? - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2816e76a45837d7b?hl=en
* On car dealerships (a way they can get more business) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a5168c7d20e35d61?hl=en
* Frugal Singles Sites - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7e2a7d9ec9713a6?hl=en
* Fake microsoft "your computer is infected" call - 17 messages, 10 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc91538c09253cb0?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Restore/revive worn windshield wiper blades?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2816e76a45837d7b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 10 2013 9:37 am
From: "Bob F"


The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/09/2013 05:12 PM, Bob F wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> I bought some TripLEdge blades for my previous car. They were still
>>> good several years later when I had to junk the car
>>
>> How do those things do in the snow? Do they shed it any better?
>
> I've never been snowed on, unfortunately.

But, you're a skier aren't you?

The biggest problem I have with wipers is when they get clogged to uselessness
by snow on the way to ski.






== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 10 2013 3:11 pm
From: The Real Bev


On 11/10/2013 09:37 AM, Bob F wrote:

> The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 11/09/2013 05:12 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I bought some TripLEdge blades for my previous car. They were still
>>>> good several years later when I had to junk the car
>>>
>>> How do those things do in the snow? Do they shed it any better?
>>
>> I've never been snowed on, unfortunately.
>
> But, you're a skier aren't you?

Yes, but Brian Head this year is the only non-SoCal skiing I've ever
done, and we stayed inside when it was snowing.

> The biggest problem I have with wipers is when they get clogged to uselessness
> by snow on the way to ski.

Since I've been going with my friend, she drives her little Honda
<something> sportscar convertible with the top down and the heater on.
She has the fancy soft rubber tires that I've never heard screech no
matter how fast she takes the turns. She says they're worthless in the
rain, though. Or even in dew.

Actually, looking back to pre-1990, I was up at Table Mountain (across
the street from Mountain High) with my Sentra when it started snowing.
I'd never seen snow falling before, it was really pretty. I was hiring
people and was worried about having to drive back home in the snow. One
of the guys I was hiring was the snowplow driver (who did other things
too) who assured me that I would have no problem, and that if there was
more snow than I felt comfy with he'd precede me down the hill. No
problem. I don't think it was snowing when I left.

--
Cheers, Bev
----------------------------------------------------------
"I just realized how bad the economy really is. I recently
bought a new toaster oven and as a complimentary gift,
I was given a bank." -- L. Legro




== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 10 2013 5:55 pm
From: "Bob F"


The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 09:37 AM, Bob F wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 11/09/2013 05:12 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought some TripLEdge blades for my previous car. They were
>>>>> still good several years later when I had to junk the car
>>>>
>>>> How do those things do in the snow? Do they shed it any better?
>>>
>>> I've never been snowed on, unfortunately.
>>
>> But, you're a skier aren't you?
>
> Yes, but Brian Head this year is the only non-SoCal skiing I've ever
> done, and we stayed inside when it was snowing.

Stayed inside???? MY favorite times are when it is snowing. I hate it when the
sun comes out and trashes the powder.

>
>> The biggest problem I have with wipers is when they get clogged to
>> uselessness by snow on the way to ski.
>
> Since I've been going with my friend, she drives her little Honda
> <something> sportscar convertible with the top down and the heater on.

One good spray of cascade slush from another car would cure that habit.

> She has the fancy soft rubber tires that I've never heard screech no
> matter how fast she takes the turns. She says they're worthless in
> the rain, though. Or even in dew.

Sounds like just what I need here in Seattle. NOT!






== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 10 2013 10:45 pm
From: The Real Bev


On 11/10/2013 05:55 PM, Bob F wrote:

> The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 11/10/2013 09:37 AM, Bob F wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 11/09/2013 05:12 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bought some TripLEdge blades for my previous car. They were
>>>>>> still good several years later when I had to junk the car
>>>>>
>>>>> How do those things do in the snow? Do they shed it any better?
>>>>
>>>> I've never been snowed on, unfortunately.
>>>
>>> But, you're a skier aren't you?
>>
>> Yes, but Brian Head this year is the only non-SoCal skiing I've ever
>> done, and we stayed inside when it was snowing.
>
> Stayed inside???? MY favorite times are when it is snowing. I hate it when the
> sun comes out and trashes the powder.

No experience. Normal snow quality here is icy corduroy (with holes --
the groomers aren't really religious about eliminating holes) until
maybe 9:30. Then 1.5 hours of really nice snow. Then slush. Best is
when it stayed frozen all night and was groomed after it froze. Few
days like that.

>>> The biggest problem I have with wipers is when they get clogged to
>>> uselessness by snow on the way to ski.
>>
>> Since I've been going with my friend, she drives her little Honda
>> <something> sportscar convertible with the top down and the heater on.
>
> One good spray of cascade slush from another car would cure that habit.

This is SoCal, the roads are generally dry up in the mountains unless
chains are required. That happens only when there's new snow, and our
new snow is NOT powder, although they insist on calling it that. It's
slow and sticky and unpleasant and not worth the trouble of putting on
and taking off the chains and driving 18 miles at 25 mph.

>> She has the fancy soft rubber tires that I've never heard screech no
>> matter how fast she takes the turns. She says they're worthless in
>> the rain, though. Or even in dew.
>
> Sounds like just what I need here in Seattle. NOT!

I had a Dunlop K70 (?) made of cling rubber (I don't know if they still
call it that) on my 1960 Ducati, but I never rode that in wet weather
either.

--
Cheers, Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------
Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones.




== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 15 2013 5:16 am
From: bob haller


I bought one of those wiper edge restorers it did NOT work. helped a tad for just a month

rubber detoriates and get hard with time and then cant flex enough to clean well....

considering your safety is at risk new wiper blades are well worth the bucks





==============================================================================
TOPIC: On car dealerships (a way they can get more business)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a5168c7d20e35d61?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 12 2013 3:49 pm
From: lenona321@yahoo.com




http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,337181

Excerpts from thread:

(by 20cats)

"The car place has been calling and emailing to try to get us to buy a new car. Dammit, when I got the telephone, I forgot to tell them what I thought up!

"Here it is: We will gladly buy a brand new car from you IF you sign a legitimate contract stating that you will never let a brat near us when we are in the waiting room while the car is being serviced. If you fail to adhere to the contract, then the car will be given to us FREE!

"What do you think?"


Response by canadiandragons:

"I think it's a solid idea, but phrase it more professionally. If you get read as a cranky old coot, they won't take you seriously. Here's what I would say:

" 'We are interested in continuing to do business with you, but we have had some bad experiences in your waiting area, and this gives us pause. There has been a rash of unsupervised, badly behaved children in there while we are waiting, and both my husband and myself have found waiting there to be both distressing and highly irritating. As business owners, it is your responsibility to set limits on the behaviour of those on your property. If you can guarantee us that this issue will be dealt with, then we can continue doing business together.'

"Professional, calm, lay out the problem and the solution, offer the carrot. You get taken so much more seriously!"

(end)

Lenona.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal Singles Sites
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7e2a7d9ec9713a6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 12 2013 5:04 pm
From: mwm314


Are there any free or close to free singles sites that actually have members? I tried hotornot and gocupid but the freeer it was the less it actually had members.

Any help appreciated,
Matt




== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 12 2013 8:38 pm
From: Michael Black


On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, mwm314 wrote:

> Are there any free or close to free singles sites that actually have
> members? I tried hotornot and gocupid but the freeer it was the less it
> actually had members.
>
> Any help appreciated,
> Matt
>
Dating is a formal process and is thus not particularly frugal. It's a
fixed ritual, less about getting to know someone and more about flaunting
money. Women on dating sites are likely going to be the ones who expect a
dinner and a movie or soemthing like that, which can not only be
expensive, but may not be a great way to actually get to know someone
(though a movie has the advantage that you don't have to talk for two
hours).

If you volunteer somewhere, you have a chance to meet people who share
that common interest (unless they are "volunteering" to avoid paying fines
or something), and should offer plenty of chance to interact.

Or get involved in something that interests you, you'll find people who
share that same interest. You then get to see something about them before
that formal ritual.

Find the right common interests, and they will be more in tune with being
frugal. Someone concerned with the environment would hopefully not be
concerned that you don't drive a car (whether you do it for frugal or
environmental reasons), while someone not interested in such things might
perhaps find you odd (at the very least) if you don't drive a car.
Someone of the right interest would be more interested in doing
interesting things, that might not necessarily be expensive, rather than
the formal things, that are about money.

The thing is, a frugal date may be a better date than the formal dating,
which is the primary thing, rather than saving money.

Michael





== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 15 2013 9:08 am
From: Shoe-Chucker 2


In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1311122332030.18000@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, mwm314 wrote:
>
> > Are there any free or close to free singles sites that actually have
> > members? I tried hotornot and gocupid but the freeer it was the less it
> > actually had members.
> >
> > Any help appreciated,
> > Matt
> >
> Dating is a formal process and is thus not particularly frugal. It's a
> fixed ritual, less about getting to know someone and more about flaunting
> money. Women on dating sites are likely going to be the ones who expect a
> dinner and a movie or soemthing like that, which can not only be
> expensive, but may not be a great way to actually get to know someone
> (though a movie has the advantage that you don't have to talk for two
> hours).
>
> If you volunteer somewhere, you have a chance to meet people who share
> that common interest (unless they are "volunteering" to avoid paying fines
> or something), and should offer plenty of chance to interact.
>
> Or get involved in something that interests you, you'll find people who
> share that same interest. You then get to see something about them before
> that formal ritual.
>
> Find the right common interests, and they will be more in tune with being
> frugal. Someone concerned with the environment would hopefully not be
> concerned that you don't drive a car (whether you do it for frugal or
> environmental reasons), while someone not interested in such things might
> perhaps find you odd (at the very least) if you don't drive a car.
> Someone of the right interest would be more interested in doing
> interesting things, that might not necessarily be expensive, rather than
> the formal things, that are about money.
>
> The thing is, a frugal date may be a better date than the formal dating,
> which is the primary thing, rather than saving money.
>
> Michael

Thanks, good advice.
--
Karma ; what a concept!





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fake microsoft "your computer is infected" call
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc91538c09253cb0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 8:35 am
From: "Bob F"


I just got my second one of these calls.

Hi: I'm from microsoft support calling to warn you that your computer has many
infections...... and I am calling to help you get rid of them"

I played the game with him awhile. He had me start a run box and type in "inf"
and enter, then told me all those files are problems. He then told me to type
into the run box www.teamviewer.com, which I later checked to be a remote access
provider.

At that point, I told him is was great fun wasting his time, but that was as far
as it goes. He responded with a couple F.U.s and hung up.

The guy was calling from a big operation. There were lots of voices and noises
in the background.

I wonder how many people get scammed by this? Must be a lot to have a room full
of people doing this.

If you get such a call, have a little fun too. Let's really waste their time.
Anyone think my action will get me off their call list?






== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 8:45 am
From: "Bruce Hagen"



"Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l609q6$ceb$1@dont-email.me...
>I just got my second one of these calls.
>
> Hi: I'm from microsoft support calling to warn you that your computer has
> many infections...... and I am calling to help you get rid of them"
>
> I played the game with him awhile. He had me start a run box and type in
> "inf" and enter, then told me all those files are problems. He then told
> me to type into the run box www.teamviewer.com, which I later checked to
> be a remote access provider.
>
> At that point, I told him is was great fun wasting his time, but that was
> as far as it goes. He responded with a couple F.U.s and hung up.
>
> The guy was calling from a big operation. There were lots of voices and
> noises in the background.
>
> I wonder how many people get scammed by this? Must be a lot to have a room
> full of people doing this.
>
> If you get such a call, have a little fun too. Let's really waste their
> time. Anyone think my action will get me off their call list?
>


That's been going on for years and they often do call back. Even when you
jerk them around. <G> Probably hoping someone else will answer.

Is it a genuine call from Microsoft?
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/pc-help/2134917/genuine-microsoft


Avoid tech support phone scams
http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/security/online-privacy/avoid-phone-scams.aspx


Don't fall for phony phone tech support
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytipstalk/archive/2010/03/09/don-t-fall-for-phony-phone-tech-support.aspx

--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010
Imperial Beach, CA









































== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 9:59 am
From: Moe DeLoughan


On 11/13/2013 10:35 AM, Bob F wrote:
> I just got my second one of these calls.
>
> Hi: I'm from microsoft support calling to warn you that your computer has many
> infections...... and I am calling to help you get rid of them"
>

> I wonder how many people get scammed by this? Must be a lot to have a room full
> of people doing this.

One of my sisters was taken in by this, because she was desperate for
help regaining access to her third Gmail account (she keeps losing her
password and totally losing access, thus requiring her to create a new
account). He strung her along using the standard ploy and she bought
into it completely - well, until he told her he needed $300 to clean
her pc and regain her password. She's broke and unemployed. She told
him she didn't have that much in her savings account. He obligingly
lowered the fee to just below what she told him was left in her
savings account. She belatedly acquired some common sense, declined,
and hung up.

He called back. This time the fee was a mere ninety-nine cents. She
refused and hung up again.

He kept calling the rest of the afternoon.

>
> If you get such a call, have a little fun too. Let's really waste their time.
> Anyone think my action will get me off their call list?

No, because they haven't got a call list. They have sequential
diallers that phone numbers in sequence.

If you annoy them, they're ready and willing to annoy you right back.
Personally, I see nothing to be gained by interacting with criminals.
Safer and faster to just hang up.





== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 11:54 am
From: "(PeteCresswell)"


Per Bruce Hagen:
> - Is it a genuine call from Microsoft?
> http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/pc-help/2134917/genuine-microsoft
>
>
> - Avoid tech support phone scams
>http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/security/online-privacy/avoid-phone-scams.aspx
>
>
> - Don�t fall for phony phone tech support
>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytipstalk/archive/2010/03/09/don-t-fall-for-phony-phone-tech-support.aspx

- If somebody calls that you don't know, tell them their life
would be easier if they didn't call people on the Do Not Call
List and hang up.

Personally, if it don't hear what I call "activity" within about a half
second of saying "Hello, this is Pete Cresswell", I say "Hello...Hello",
wait another half second, and hang up.

Seems like dialers take a couple of seconds to alert a telemarketer that
somebody has picked up and the sound (or lack of) on the line is
peculiar to that situation.

I have hung up on two legitimate callers that I know of (who called
right back) in the past year - but that's out of hundreds and hundreds
of other calls.
--
Pete Cresswell




== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 2:53 pm
From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)"


In message <l60emd$j8u$1@dont-email.me>, Moe DeLoughan
<moe@notmine.null> writes:
[]
>If you annoy them, they're ready and willing to annoy you right back.
>Personally, I see nothing to be gained by interacting with criminals.
>Safer and faster to just hang up.
>
I'd be more inclined to be public-spirited and call the police on
another line, but I suspect they'd not be able to respond in the time
needed (i. e. for as long as I could string them along). I'm speaking of
UK police and telecomm. systems; would it be any different in the USA?

(Of course if they're calling from say India, it wouldn't help anyway.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.




== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 4:20 pm
From: "(PeteCresswell)"


Per J. P. Gilliver (John):
>I'd be more inclined to be public-spirited and call the police on
>another line, but I suspect they'd not be able to respond in the time
>needed (i. e. for as long as I could string them along). I'm speaking of
>UK police and telecomm. systems; would it be any different in the USA?

IMHO, speaking as a USA resident, you would be wasting your time and the
police's time.

I have a collection of lame-sounding letters from the Pennsylvania
Attorney General's office responding to my reports (via their web site
dedicated to that purpose) of callers who violated the state's
Do-Not-Call list law.

They all say words to the effect of: "The game has changed. These guys
have moved offshore and hide behind VOIP accounts - sometimes with
multiple hops from VOIP account to VOIP account."

Bottom line, it sounds like unless the perpetrator is really dumb, he is
pretty much untouchable.
--
Pete Cresswell




== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 4:53 pm
From: Metspitzer


On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:20:30 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Per J. P. Gilliver (John):
>>I'd be more inclined to be public-spirited and call the police on
>>another line, but I suspect they'd not be able to respond in the time
>>needed (i. e. for as long as I could string them along). I'm speaking of
>>UK police and telecomm. systems; would it be any different in the USA?
>
>IMHO, speaking as a USA resident, you would be wasting your time and the
>police's time.
>
>I have a collection of lame-sounding letters from the Pennsylvania
>Attorney General's office responding to my reports (via their web site
>dedicated to that purpose) of callers who violated the state's
>Do-Not-Call list law.
>
>They all say words to the effect of: "The game has changed. These guys
>have moved offshore and hide behind VOIP accounts - sometimes with
>multiple hops from VOIP account to VOIP account."
>
They should tell you that when you report numbers to the National No
Call List, but they don't. They will let you report a company over
and over knowing there is nothing they can do to stop them.

>Bottom line, it sounds like unless the perpetrator is really dumb, he is
>pretty much untouchable.

I used to get so many calls from Cardholders Services, I was tempted
to have my phone disconnected. The strange thing is that the will
call using the same phone number more than once. I have bought a
phone that will let you block 30 phone numbers. Blocking the number
does help, but they call from other numbers too. I wish the phone
would let you block the name on the caller ID. They use more than one
caller ID, but they do use the same ones again.


The blocking seems to have slowed the calls down, but they still call.




== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 5:40 pm
From: OldGuy


After serious thinking Metspitzer wrote :
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:20:30 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Per J. P. Gilliver (John):
>>> I'd be more inclined to be public-spirited and call the police on
>>> another line, but I suspect they'd not be able to respond in the time
>>> needed (i. e. for as long as I could string them along). I'm speaking of
>>> UK police and telecomm. systems; would it be any different in the USA?
>>
>> IMHO, speaking as a USA resident, you would be wasting your time and the
>> police's time.
>>
>> I have a collection of lame-sounding letters from the Pennsylvania
>> Attorney General's office responding to my reports (via their web site
>> dedicated to that purpose) of callers who violated the state's
>> Do-Not-Call list law.
>>
>> They all say words to the effect of: "The game has changed. These guys
>> have moved offshore and hide behind VOIP accounts - sometimes with
>> multiple hops from VOIP account to VOIP account."
>>
> They should tell you that when you report numbers to the National No
> Call List, but they don't. They will let you report a company over
> and over knowing there is nothing they can do to stop them.
>
>> Bottom line, it sounds like unless the perpetrator is really dumb, he is
>> pretty much untouchable.
>
> I used to get so many calls from Cardholders Services, I was tempted
> to have my phone disconnected. The strange thing is that the will
> call using the same phone number more than once. I have bought a
> phone that will let you block 30 phone numbers. Blocking the number
> does help, but they call from other numbers too. I wish the phone
> would let you block the name on the caller ID. They use more than one
> caller ID, but they do use the same ones again.
>
>
> The blocking seems to have slowed the calls down, but they still call.

Ok so they are money grubbing aholes.

This is what I have done in the past.
Recently it has not been too annoying so I have it off for now.

I have an PC with voice/FAX modem and software application that
monitors the incoming caller ID. When a call come in it logs the call
and records any messages like an answering machine. I review the
incoming calls and see if any are worthy of responding to. Those that
leave no message and are out of the area I assume are after my wallet
so I put them into the "bad caller" list. The next time they call, the
"This number has been disconnected" tones and message is automatically
played by the software app. For automatic calling machines this
signals to remove my number from their list. For other callers it just
discourages them enough to not bother calling back.
I let the software run for quite a while before activating that feature
so that I do not cut off the important calls.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---




== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 6:19 pm
From: Mark F


(Responding to various posts about scammers being off shore,
protected by VOIP, and cannot be traced effectively.):

So the NSA can't track them in real time and cause trouble for them
the next day if they are anywhere in the USA, Europe, India, and about
100 other countries?




== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 7:03 pm
From: "Bob F"


Mark F wrote:
> (Responding to various posts about scammers being off shore,
> protected by VOIP, and cannot be traced effectively.):
>
> So the NSA can't track them in real time and cause trouble for them
> the next day if they are anywhere in the USA, Europe, India, and about
> 100 other countries?

Wow! Finally someone comes up with a real reason for the NSA.






== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 7:27 pm
From: Metspitzer


On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:40:07 -0800, OldGuy <OldGuy@nospam.com> wrote:

>After serious thinking Metspitzer wrote :
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:20:30 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Per J. P. Gilliver (John):
>>>> I'd be more inclined to be public-spirited and call the police on
>>>> another line, but I suspect they'd not be able to respond in the time
>>>> needed (i. e. for as long as I could string them along). I'm speaking of
>>>> UK police and telecomm. systems; would it be any different in the USA?
>>>
>>> IMHO, speaking as a USA resident, you would be wasting your time and the
>>> police's time.
>>>
>>> I have a collection of lame-sounding letters from the Pennsylvania
>>> Attorney General's office responding to my reports (via their web site
>>> dedicated to that purpose) of callers who violated the state's
>>> Do-Not-Call list law.
>>>
>>> They all say words to the effect of: "The game has changed. These guys
>>> have moved offshore and hide behind VOIP accounts - sometimes with
>>> multiple hops from VOIP account to VOIP account."
>>>
>> They should tell you that when you report numbers to the National No
>> Call List, but they don't. They will let you report a company over
>> and over knowing there is nothing they can do to stop them.
>>
>>> Bottom line, it sounds like unless the perpetrator is really dumb, he is
>>> pretty much untouchable.
>>
>> I used to get so many calls from Cardholders Services, I was tempted
>> to have my phone disconnected. The strange thing is that the will
>> call using the same phone number more than once. I have bought a
>> phone that will let you block 30 phone numbers. Blocking the number
>> does help, but they call from other numbers too. I wish the phone
>> would let you block the name on the caller ID. They use more than one
>> caller ID, but they do use the same ones again.
>>
>>
>> The blocking seems to have slowed the calls down, but they still call.
>
>Ok so they are money grubbing aholes.
>
>This is what I have done in the past.
>Recently it has not been too annoying so I have it off for now.
>
>I have an PC with voice/FAX modem and software application that
>monitors the incoming caller ID. When a call come in it logs the call
>and records any messages like an answering machine. I review the
>incoming calls and see if any are worthy of responding to. Those that
>leave no message and are out of the area I assume are after my wallet
>so I put them into the "bad caller" list. The next time they call, the
>"This number has been disconnected" tones and message is automatically
>played by the software app. For automatic calling machines this
>signals to remove my number from their list. For other callers it just
>discourages them enough to not bother calling back.
>I let the software run for quite a while before activating that feature
>so that I do not cut off the important calls.
>
I thought about trying one of those. I have a drawer full of old
modems, but no computer with one in it currently.

Which app do you use?




== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 5:52 am
From: Moe DeLoughan


On 11/13/2013 6:53 PM, Metspitzer wrote:

> I used to get so many calls from Cardholders Services, I was tempted
> to have my phone disconnected. The strange thing is that the will
> call using the same phone number more than once. I have bought a
> phone that will let you block 30 phone numbers. Blocking the number
> does help, but they call from other numbers too. I wish the phone
> would let you block the name on the caller ID. They use more than one
> caller ID, but they do use the same ones again.
>
>
> The blocking seems to have slowed the calls down, but they still call.
>

That's because these scams are run by multiple independent operators.
It's not just one perp, it's a whole bunch of them. The way it works
is, somebody comes up with the scam and opens a boiler room operation.
Some of the people working the boiler room learn the ropes, realize
they can set up the same operation themselves, and they do so. So the
feds are engaged in a perpetual game of whack-a-mole - shut one
operation down, three more have already opened up.

Remember the contest the FTC held last year to find solutions to
telemarketers? One of the two winning proposals has gone operational.
It's called Nomorobo and is designed to deal with robocalls, which
make up a large percentage of unlawful telemarketing calls. If your
phone service provider is participating in the program, you can sign
up for it. It's free.

Here's an article about it:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/block-pesky-illegal-robocallers-220537765.html

and here's the site to register your number:
http://www.nomorobo.com/




== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 7:37 am
From: "(PeteCresswell)"


Per Mark F:
>(Responding to various posts about scammers being off shore,
>protected by VOIP, and cannot be traced effectively.):
>
>So the NSA can't track them in real time and cause trouble for them
>the next day if they are anywhere in the USA, Europe, India, and about
>100 other countries?

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me like they don't need the NSA.

I would think they could have a farm of honey pot phones where people
answer, comply with the caller until it gets down to money changing
hands, and then do the transaction with specially-issued credit cards
that serve as evidence once they find out where the recipient is.

Whatever the solution, it all costs money... and if the NSA got
involved, I'd call that a major slippery slope.

IMHO the real solution is challenge-response.

Frequent callers learn which key(s) to press so, if they're quick
enough, they never even hear the prompt. Everybody else gets the prompt
and the first wrong response either hangs up or flips to voicemail.

For home phones, that could be a box that the user buys and installs
between the POTS line and his phone system.

For cell phones, I'd think the service providers would have to come on
board - which might be a problem since every junk call racks up minutes
and revenue for them.
--
Pete Cresswell




== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 9:10 am
From: KenK


"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in
news:s4r9895cv3j04dt952f0t5hanja6a1l02p@4ax.com:

> Per Mark F:
>>(Responding to various posts about scammers being off shore,
>>protected by VOIP, and cannot be traced effectively.):
>>
>>So the NSA can't track them in real time and cause trouble for them
>>the next day if they are anywhere in the USA, Europe, India, and about
>>100 other countries?
>
> I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me like they don't need the NSA.
>
> I would think they could have a farm of honey pot phones where people
> answer, comply with the caller until it gets down to money changing
> hands, and then do the transaction with specially-issued credit cards
> that serve as evidence once they find out where the recipient is.
>
> Whatever the solution, it all costs money... and if the NSA got
> involved, I'd call that a major slippery slope.
>
> IMHO the real solution is challenge-response.
>
> Frequent callers learn which key(s) to press so, if they're quick
> enough, they never even hear the prompt. Everybody else gets the
prompt
> and the first wrong response either hangs up or flips to voicemail.
>
> For home phones, that could be a box that the user buys and installs
> between the POTS line and his phone system.
>
> For cell phones, I'd think the service providers would have to come on
> board - which might be a problem since every junk call racks up minutes
> and revenue for them.

That sounds like the best idea yet. No computer on 24/7 required. I hope
someone makes one.


--
"Where there's smoke there's toast!" Anon









== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 9:16 am
From: "Bob F"


Bob F wrote:
> I just got my second one of these calls.
>
> Hi: I'm from microsoft support calling to warn you that your computer
> has many infections...... and I am calling to help you get rid of
> them"
> I played the game with him awhile. He had me start a run box and type
> in "inf" and enter, then told me all those files are problems. He
> then told me to type into the run box www.teamviewer.com, which I
> later checked to be a remote access provider.
>
> At that point, I told him is was great fun wasting his time, but that
> was as far as it goes. He responded with a couple F.U.s and hung up.
>
> The guy was calling from a big operation. There were lots of voices
> and noises in the background.
>
> I wonder how many people get scammed by this? Must be a lot to have a
> room full of people doing this.
>
> If you get such a call, have a little fun too. Let's really waste
> their time. Anyone think my action will get me off their call list?

FWIW, I just got the following from teamviewer after notifying them of the call.
**************************************************
Dear Sir or Madam

We are sorry to hear that you have been contacted in this way.

There have been several cases of systematic fraud using our software,
originating mainly from India. In most cases, private persons from the UK, USA
or Australia are contacted by telephone.
As you described in your e-mail, the similarities of most fraud calls are:

- A person with a strong Indian accent called
- Stating they are from Microsoft or certified by Microsoft (more information
can be found here:
http://www.microsoft.com/security/online-privacy/msname.aspx - Microsoft will
NEVER make cold calls!)
- Stating they get a lot of reports from the private persons system (viruses
etc.)
- Leading them e.g. to the Windows Event Viewer (Start -> Run -> "eventvwr")
- Offering support and selling a service contract or similar
- Connecting via a Remote Support Tool to fix the "problem"
- Installing free anti-virus tools or doing suspicious actions on the system

They are using free products like ours and several other free anti-virus
systems, charging the customer for installing these. We have already contacted
the vendors of the anti-virus programs used. They are also investigating this
matter.

There have also been several cases of "fake refunds": instead of receiving a
refund payment, money was stolen from the bank accounts in question.

Generally, we recommend victims to contact their bank, a consumer protection
organization and a trustworthy IT support company. In most cases, the payments
that have been made can be refunded by the bank, and any malicious software
installed by the callers can be removed by the IT support company. We can also
determine and block the TeamViewer ID used by the scammers if we are provided
with the victim's ID.

TeamViewer will display a warning message if an incoming connection with a
potential fraudulent background is detected ("Please be careful with unsolicited
calls. Do you know the person you are interacting with at the moment? This
technician is using a free trial version of TeamViewer. Only choose
"trustworthy" if you really know and trust the person you are talking to"). Can
you confirm that you received this warning?

Thank you very much in advance for your reply.

If there is anything else we can help you with or if there are still any open
questions, please feel free to contact us again.

Best regards,

Martin Heinzmann
-Security Representative-

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






== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 1:10 pm
From: gordonb.9ybid@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)


> I would think they could have a farm of honey pot phones where people
> answer, comply with the caller until it gets down to money changing
> hands, and then do the transaction with specially-issued credit cards
> that serve as evidence once they find out where the recipient is.

Somehow nobody believes me when I give them a credit card number
of "1", last name "God", first name "Almighty". Adam & Eve had
"2" jointly, until she got in trouble with that charge for an apple.

*ANY* credit card ought to be able to provide evidence of who charged
to it, given a complaint of a fraudulent (or even just unrecognized)
charge by the owner of the card.

I think the key to stopping this is to break the banking system
(which probably requires abrogating international treaties on the
subject. This might not be a good idea since the USA is in such a
precarious financial condition). One illegal transaction and all
the money in the account is seized, the card is blacklisted, and
any other cards or bank accounts the person/company has are also
blacklisted. Unfortunately, that requires international cooperation.

> Whatever the solution, it all costs money... and if the NSA got
> involved, I'd call that a major slippery slope.

I'd prefer that the Air Force missile command get involved over the
NSA.

> For cell phones, I'd think the service providers would have to come on
> board - which might be a problem since every junk call racks up minutes
> and revenue for them.

Smartphones have an app (well, there's lots of apps that do this,
from many different companies and for lots of different platforms)
that let you block individual numbers. Either the call is answered
and hung up on, or it's forwarded to voice mail. Many let you
easily block the previous call. And as near as I can tell, the
block list can be pretty long. Storing 100,000 phone numbers to
block may take the same memory as one photo. Some of them also let
you block with wildcards, where you might block a whole area code,
or a group of exchanges.

Bad side: I don't think it can do anything about the drain on your
minutes. It may encourage some wrong-number callers (who don't
think they are being blocked, as they are doing nothing obnoxious)
to keep trying. Then again, they might leave a message, and you
can call back and tell them that you don't deliver pizzas or that
they have Grandma's phone number wrong.

I think some cellphone providers have a web app that can block a
limited number of numbers (say, 8, the number you can block with
"Call Reject" on landline phones where it is available), and these
blocked calls *don't* cost minutes.





== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 1:41 pm
From: "(PeteCresswell)"


Per Gordon Burditt:
>> board - which might be a problem since every junk call racks up minutes
>> and revenue for them.
>
>Smartphones have an app (well, there's lots of apps that do this,
>from many different companies and for lots of different platforms)
>that let you block individual numbers. Either the call is answered
>and hung up on, or it's forwarded to voice mail. Many let you
>easily block the previous call. And as near as I can

I am remiss.

I actually have such an app on my cell phone - and haven't gotten a robo
or solicitor call since installing it almost a year ago.... so I wasn't
even thinking about it when I wrote my post.

In part, it crowdsources the identification of telemarketers. There's
more, but I can't spell it out off the top of my head.

The app is named "CallContnrol" and once configured is pretty much
invisible - i.e. there's nothing to do except let it do it's thing.

One might ask "Is it blocking legitimate calls?".

I don't know - Nobody's complained, and I'm just trusting it.
--
Pete Cresswell




==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en