From: gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: capturing caller id data
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:02:27 GMT

In article <8bYf02a7c0uY00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) writes:
>
>}For most people, the answering machine could meet their needs... for others
>}who have more stringent requirements, a personal code system would do the
>}job.  Neither NEEDS CLID.  Both are available NOW.  For use ANYWHERE.
>
>}Tell you what, why not take a moment and describe HOW you will use CLID to
>}get what you want.  Be sure to include calls from people you did not
>}anticipate, and ones from people you know, but are not at a number you
>}would expect them to be at.  Let's say the call is somewhat urgent...
>
>John, don't you ever get tired of beating your head against this same wall?
>I answered the above question for you the last time this went around.  You
>didn't really listen to my answer then, and I don't see you really listening
>now, either.

Wellll... I think this is a case of you giving an answer to a slightly
different question than I asked, and then assuming your answer was so
satisfactory I should just declare you right.

It would seem we continue to disagree...

>  You just keep telling people what they want.

No, not really, but that seems to be the way you see it...

>             You are so
>focused on what you see as the shortcomings of CID that you can't seem to
>acknowledege the shortcomings that others see in answering machines and
>secret codes.

I notice you didn't claim that I "fail to see the strengths of CLID".
Wonder why...

Other things have drawbacks too.  I have NEVER said that any one thing
was the PERFECT solution, without flaws.  Just that CLID is really
the weakest (and most expensive) of the solutions...

Now.  In the articles you have followed up to, the person I replied to
stated (pretty clearly I might add...):

#This is how I want to lead my private life.  When a call comes that is
#one I want, I want it now, at a minimum of inconvenience for me and the
#caller. When a call comes that I don't want, or that I want a message taken
#for, I don't want to even know that it's happening.

So I pointed out to him that CLID won't do this for him.  I then asked him
the question you quoted from me above, which is to explain HOW he
would use CLID to get what *he* wants.  Readers should note that what he
wants and what you claim to want below are significantly different...

>So let's try an experiment.  Here is how I will use CID:  If I recognize
>the incoming number, I will decide whether or not I want to talk to the
>persons or persons associated with that number and act accordingly.  If
>I don't recognize the number, I will either take the chance and answer 
>it anyway or I will ignore it, depending on my mood at the time.  If that
>means I miss an urgent call, then that's just too bad for me.  It was my
>choice, and I'm willing to live with the consequences.

Hey.  Great.  You are willing to trade lost calls in favor of fewer
nuisance calls.  What I have been saying all along is that this is what will
happen with CLID.  Indeed surveys seem to show that while nuisance calls
are reduces 80% or more (of total nuisance calls), wanted calls that
are missed are in the range 40% (of wanted calls).

All the readers here have to do is compare the numbers, after realizing
how many nuisance calls they get relative to the number of regular calls.

I have never said that NOONE will want CLID.  Just that it is a poor
alternative to other things that exist.

>Now, are you going to tell me what I REALLY want?

CLID.  Am I right?  Am I surprised?

John

-- 
John Gilbert
gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com
..!uunet!mdisea!gilbert