GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) (08/30/89)
I can't help but wonder about the fascination with the number 234-5678. What's the big deal? The discussion started out as someone's childhood recollection of getting an intercept recording after dialling the digits on the telephone in order. Now, it seems like someone has chimed in from almost every area code with a report on what happens when that number is dialled today. How 'bout international, folks? The "234" exchange is not a test exchange, and "5678" is no big deal. What about 987-6543? or 876-5432? or even 765-4321? Let's take it further, shall we? Did you know that, at one time about 10 years ago, it seemed that 382-5968 was not assigned *anywhere*? Perhaps the reason it wasn't assigned is that it is possible to spell F*** Y** with that number. They did not, however, restrict the whole series of 382-5xxx, so that my number was F***-222. Do we find that more, or less, interesting than 234-5678? Do most of us care? (At the risk of being challenged to come up with something else) don't we have anything better to discuss? -Scott
sac90286@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kubla Khan) (08/30/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0333m09@vector.dallas.tx.us> GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) writes: >Let's take it further, shall we? Did you know that, at one time about 10 >years ago, it seemed that 382-5968 was not assigned *anywhere*? Perhaps >the reason it wasn't assigned is that it is possible to spell F*** Y** >with that number. I doubt that was the real reason, as a couple years back I was assigned 328-7448 (EAT-SH*T). I seriously doubt that the telcos give a 7448 what your number spells. :-) >-Scott Scott kubla@uiuc.edu
ben@sybase.com (ben ullrich) (08/31/89)
> I can't help but wonder about the fascination with the number 234-5678. > What's the big deal? The discussion started out as someone's childhood > recollection of getting an intercept recording after dialling the digits > on the telephone in order. Now, it seems like someone has chimed in from > almost every area code with a report on what happens when that number is > dialled today. How 'bout international, folks? > Let's take it further, shall we? Did you know that, at one time about 10 > years ago, it seemed that 382-5968 was not assigned *anywhere*? Perhaps > the reason it wasn't assigned is that it is possible to spell F*** Y** > with that number. They did not, however, restrict the whole series of > 382-5xxx, so that my number was F***-222. I find it comical that you complain about what you think is a needless discussion of a silly phone number, and in the same breath bring up yet another number that follows right along with the discussion. It was *your* number that you pointed out; could THAT have something to do with it? > Do we find that more, or less, interesting than 234-5678? Do most of us > care? (At the risk of being challenged to come up with something else) don't > we have anything better to discuss? You risked it, now do it. If you want to discuss something else, then do so. Don't bitch at all of telecom for doing something and then go do it yourself. Better examples are what's needed, not complaining from hypocrites. ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc., emeryville, ca "When you deal with human beings, a certain +1 (415) 596 - 3500 amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- mike trout ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben