Dec. 21 upgrade? (Lucky you?)

[Rickiev]

Unplug MJ and plug in again, then update again. After update is complete and MJ restarts, unplug then plug in again. That should correct the problem.

[hsweiss]

Did anyone else notice that the December 21st upgrade renamed the C: drive to "magicJack (C:)." And I can't change it back.

Any ideas? Any help??

Yes, it happened to me. I was running dongle-less and it forced an upgrade (plug in your dongle). MJ worked fine after that with the dongle. I recopied the code from the dongle to the hard drive to restart with a new version for dongle-less operation and it too worked. But then I find that in "My Computer" the formerly drive known a "Local Drive C:" is now "magicJack (Vista only) (C:)" with a MJ icon and a MJ autorun. But if I "explore" this drive, its still my good 'ol C drive (thank goodness). I will investigate changing this back and report back when I find a cure - unless someone else has already found it!

One other strange thing - although it said I needed an upgrade it didn't upgrade to the latest version. Its still running 1.80.451.2 from Aug 2008.

[hsweiss]

I found a cure for the renamed C: drive. Look for an autorun.inf that got dropped into your c:\ folder. Probably, there will also be a DO NOT USE THIS DRIVE empty file. These are the files that normally show up in one of the magicJack drives but at least in my case ended up getting dropped into the c:\ folder when the dongle-less version was being updated.

At any rate, either rename or delete the c:\autorun.inf and then either logout or reboot. In my case, when I logged out and logged back in (WinXP Pro SP2), it still had the MJ icon and the magicJack name but the autorun to start magicJack was gone. When I renamed the device "Local Drive" the icon automatically changed to look like it used to as a hard drive.

[isleblue65]

Unplug MJ and plug in again, then update again. After update is complete and MJ restarts, unplug then plug in again. That should correct the problem.

My "Lucky You" upgrade came through today. Afterward I had a dial tone but could not dial out. After pressing the first number on the phone keypad, there was a 1 second pause and then the dial tone came back. I can receive calls though to my MJ.

I tried the trick above and re-downloaded the upgrade from the MJ site followed by unplugging and plugging in MJ, but I still can not dial out.

Now I have a worthless MJ. Have any fixes been found?

Thanks,
Craig

[ecooper333]

Just upgraded and now I can only get that error 9. Spent an hour and a half with tech support to no avail.

[andrey02]

I got an automatic update. Update version exe file is first being downloaded from update.magicjack.com stored and ran from C:\Documents and Settings\username\Local Settings\Application Data\magicJack\UpdateDownload

[DrStrange]

I have the 12/17 upgrade, and now it wants to give me another upgrade [or it still wants to upgrade me]. It's either another upgrade or a glitch.

EDIT - Never mind. It's just an ad. Ran magicfix and it's the same version. Personally, I'm curious if the 30-minute cutoff is still there, but that's for another thread.

[az2008]

Personally, I'm curious if the 30-minute cutoff is still there, but that's for another thread.

It's been reported in another topic that Dan (or someone who's his email mistress) said the 30-minute deal was just an "experiment" and has backed out.

Mark

[HolmanGT]

I have the 12/17 upgrade, and now it wants to give me another upgrade [or it still wants to upgrade me]. It's either another upgrade or a glitch.

EDIT - Never mind. It's just an ad. Ran magicfix and it's the same version. Personally, I'm curious if the 30-minute cutoff is still there, but that's for another thread.

Dr,

It may be for another thread but social amenities have never stopped me before... I would think that the "30 Minutes" is in their servers and just coincidental with the upgrade - why would you have to change ever MJ device in the universe to have the server disconnect you at the 30 minute mark. Two Cents.

[az2008]

I would think that the "30 Minutes" is in their servers and just coincidental with the upgrade - why would you have to change ever MJ device in the universe to have the server disconnect you at the 30 minute mark.

It's strange isn't it? They put the 30-minute limit into the softphone (as a constant definition). But, according to Dan (or whoever answers his mail), they've backed out of that "experiment." How did they back out without sending another upgrade? That makes it sound like it's controlled at the server. (Which makes one wonder why the softphone has the constant definition.).

Mark

[HolmanGT]

I would think that the "30 Minutes" is in their servers and just coincidental with the upgrade - why would you have to change ever MJ device in the universe to have the server disconnect you at the 30 minute mark.

It's strange isn't it? They put the 30-minute limit into the softphone (as a constant definition). But, according to Dan (or whoever answers his mail), they've backed out of that "experiment." How did they back out without sending another upgrade? That makes it sound like it's controlled at the server. (Which makes one wonder why the softphone has the constant definition.).

Mark

What did you do Mark de-compile the code and go looking for the variable that contained the timeout? If that is what you did you are one tough and determined Coyote !!!

Well I guess we won't know for sure until the 30 minutes goes away (though I just read someone say for them it had) and we are still running the same Upgrade.

[az2008]

What did you do Mark de-compile the code and go looking for the variable that contained the timeout?

I was referring to this post:

http://www.phoneservicesupport.com/post26914.html#26914

Mark

[HolmanGT]

What did you do Mark de-compile the code and go looking for the variable that contained the timeout?

I was referring to this post:

http://www.phoneservicesupport.com/post26914.html#26914

Mark

Hmmm...
Mark, that makes about as much sense as most of the stuff MJ pulls. 1. Why would you put it in the individual phones when one parameter on the server would take care of all?
2. The time limit in that code appears to by 60 minutes not 30, now I am really confused. (I know normal state for me).[Edited for stupidity]
2. The time limit in that code is 30 minutes.

[az2008]

2. The time limit in that code appears to by 60 minutes not 30,

1800 is the number of seconds in 30 minutes. (Not sure what you're looking at for 60 minutes).

But, I agree that it's strange that this value is put in the softphone, with a very descriptive variable name concerning outbound limit. But, according to Dan's response, they've stopped the limit apparently without another upgrade. Which makes it sound like a server-side control.

Mark

[HolmanGT]

2. The time limit in that code appears to by 60 minutes not 30,

1800 is the number of seconds in 30 minutes. (Not sure what you're looking at for 60 minutes).

But, I agree that it's strange that this value is put in the softphone, with a very descriptive variable name concerning outbound limit. But, according to Dan's response, they've stopped the limit apparently without another upgrade. Which makes it sound like a server-side control.

Mark

Oops - my fault. 1800/60 is 30. Don't know what I did but my desktop calculator must have a "Stupid" button on it.

[redshirt]

Unplug MJ and plug in again, then update again. After update is complete and MJ restarts, unplug then plug in again. That should correct the problem.

My "Lucky You" upgrade came through today. Afterward I had a dial tone but could not dial out. After pressing the first number on the phone keypad, there was a 1 second pause and then the dial tone came back. I can receive calls though to my MJ.

I tried the trick above and re-downloaded the upgrade from the MJ site followed by unplugging and plugging in MJ, but I still can not dial out.

Now I have a worthless MJ. Have any fixes been found?

Thanks,
Craig

This sounds like the same problem that I had. Unable to phone out, dialtone, no error message, dialing a number pauses and goes right back to dial tone.

I had tried upgrading again, in case of failed upgrade, restarting, removing and restarting, restarting the whole computer, and nothing seemed to work. Eventually, I powered down my whole pc for an hour, and when I powered it back on, it was worked again.

And then, I was either given another upgrade, or my old upgrade failed, and the same problem came back. I suspect this is how my magicjack reacts to upgrades. In the future, I'm going to upgrade and power cycle for 15m+, since I've seen elsewhere on the computer that this failure often has to do with a screwy profile on the server end.

[HendersonMike]

Crap!!
They nailed me with that
"upgrade"......................

[hsweiss]

I found that I got "lucky" early this morning with the upgrade. Turns out that not only does it works - so far it works far better than the previous version. Sound quality is *much* improved on both ends of the connection. There is no echo which I had been suffering from for many months if I didn't use the *67 trick. I definitely didn't have a 30 min cutoff but don't know if its at 60 min since I just hung up after a 47 min call that was almost flawless.

[ret27m]

hsweiss

I'm pretty well tone deaf but my wife said the same thing that the sound quailty was MUCH better with the new upgrade, with these old beat up ears of mine I could'nt hear a differance.

[arcadia2uk]

The Error 9 issue is apparently linked to you personal firewall. MJ have posted the remede here:
http://www.magicjack.com/9/firewall.asp
further in a memory dump from the latest version you can find a timelimiter value:

Code: Select all

[MagicJackOptions.CallDurationControl]
MaxOutboundCallDuration=3600

[wag]

I can confirm that the new time limit is now 60 minutes.

[xxM5xx]

I can confirm that the new time limit is now 60 minutes.

Oh really? Not here.

[Thunder]

I can confirm that the new time limit is now 60 minutes.

Oh really? Not here.

Well your Lucky. I went from 30 minutes to 60 minutes in area code 630. This being for out going calls.

[HolmanGT]

Oh really? Not here.

Well your Lucky. I went from 30 minutes to 60 minutes in area code 630. This being for out going calls.[/quote]

Thunder,

How did you determine you time limit went to 60 minutes? Did you have to do it the hard way and make an intentional 60 minute plus call.

I started to do that with my daughter but we ran out of things to talk about.

[Thunder]

Yes, I did it the hard way. Called my cell and just let it sit to see what would happen. At 60 the phone just stopped.

[HolmanGT]

Yes, I did it the hard way. Called my cell and just let it sit to see what would happen. At 60 the phone just stopped.

Thunder,

You are a dyed in the wool hardcore investigator - "Whatever it takes".

But now that you have tested it the way you did I can say what I was thinking from the moment I read a post that was supposedly a quote from Dan B. in which he said they were attempting to root out some hackers in what I interpreted as attempts at denial of service. Those are not the exact terms used but the exact terms were a bit confusing and I doubt a literal quote from Dan B or for that matter anything that Dan B. said at all.

I just find it very difficult to believe a multi-millionaire sits around answering emails. That is of course unless he is sitting in the back of his Marlin fishing boat off the coast of Bimini give dictation to his staff in between Marlin catching and Martinis.

Anyway if you are trying to put the kibosh on someone tying up lines with empty calls why not terminate a call if it goes quiet for (just a suggestion time wise) 15 minutes. That seems better than some no warning call termination.

Anyway - just another two cents in the bucket.

[StrobeWylan]

I just called my cell phone (wife had it) and it was not quiet, but active. Got cut off at exactly one hour. I'm sure I log less than 500 minutes per normal month and so doubt I am targeted for overuse. Hopefully this is temporary as some have suggested, a remedy for holiday over traffic?

Best to all.

[HolmanGT]

My worst case guess for my usage would be between 800 to 900 minutes a month. And only while helping someone with a computer problem do I ever go much over an hour and a half. If I can't expect to use it in that fashion MJ is for sure losing a lot of its glitter. I'll go back to my Cell, I pay for it anyway and they never cut me off, or for that matter make any innuendo that my usage is abusive.

[side4]

Ugh. I just did the upgrade, and suddenly I can't call out. I get no error message. I pick up the phone, get dial tone, dial the number, and there will be a bare pause and then I'm right back to dial tone.

I suppose I'll restart my entire computer, and see if that helps.

same thing happened to me after the Dec 25 upgrade cannot dial out of my panasonic phone softphone works fine after 5 hours of UNtechnical support and a complete wast of time discovered if I used a phone with the long DTMF tones it would work but not with the short tones from my panasonic phone.... so this upgrade broke the MJ ...

[symtron]

I was on the chat with tech support for over an hour.

Started with ERROR 3 and I could see flashing in the left ad window somthing about an upgrade . It flashed for 3 hours before I called tech support.

They had me doing all kinds of stuff. after I told them that 4 different computers at work and at home all showed the same error he reset my account. I had to relogin and re register before it would work.

The upgrade must have botched the firmware on the dongle.

I never had stuttering before now I have stuttering on the call. so I'm not happy right now but it is working.

Mitch

[HolmanGT]

The general gossip says that this will fix the problem.

Run mjrecover_setup_.exe

You can get it here:

http://www.magicjack.com/site/downloads ... _setup.exe

Then unplug your MJ, wait 15 second and plug it back in.

The fix is from MJ tech support and it has worked successfully on at least on unit that a friend email me about.

[xxM5xx]

I had never seen a 30 or 60 minute cut-off on my account, but my long duration calls always occurred at, or after Midnight. Sooooo, maybe that has something to do with it. Maybe Dan had the programmers invoke the cutoff during heavy traffic times of day only. Pure speculation on my part. This would be easy to implement at the server side.

On another observation, the person(s) I'd frequently talk to for over an hour is in Nevada (I am in the Eastern USA), frequently they would call my non-MagicJack line but the Nevada person uses the MagicJack in calling me. We'd talk for over an hour and not get cut-off, their MJ account wasn't getting the cut-offs either. Sometimes I'd use my MJ to call their Nevada POTS number and we'd not get cut-off beyond 60 minutes. That makes two, me and them who do not get the MJ cut-off.

I am saying others are not getting cut-off? No, I am not. What I am saying is I don't get the cut-off, and neither does my guy in Nevada. So, this cut-off business is not applied absolutely/universally. It may have some criterion that must be met, such as time of day, in order to be invoked. I dunno. I posted in another thread this week about how I read somewhere online that Dan was having this problem with run on calls (phantom calls) and the cut-off was implemented as a band aid until they could fix the problem. It might be B.S. or it might be true. It has a ring of truth to it to me. If it is true, then you can see why Dan wouldn't want to spread any word about the cut-off timer(s) because to do so he'd have to explain that there is this bug in his system that reliably fails to end calls when the parties hang-up (the phantom calls). Admitting he has a buggy system isn't something he would want to publicize, nor would I. If his programmers thought they could find the problem and fix it in a few days or weeks, it makes sense to me that the call duration cut-off timers were put in as a temporary thing. He tried to keep it under the radar (but people here are too smart to not discover this). Seems to me like these timers will be lifted once the cause of phantom calls is understood and repaired. I'm just speculating.

xxM5xx

[xxM5xx]

Here is a thought.... DAN ARE YOU LISTENING?

Instead of hard 60 minute timers, your programming staff should have done THIS:

Have a randomizer variable to that cut-off timer such that the cut-off occurs somewhere between x and y, where x might be 48 minutes (or whatever number you choose) and where y might be 76 minutes (or whatever number). In this way "some" people may still be cut-off but they would not be so quick to discover that it was something intentional. (I know, I can be sneaky). The hard 30 or 60 minute cutoffs were too easy to notice. My cut-off timer randomizer is extremely easy to implement in software, and it is stealthy.

On the occasional observation by a small percentage of users who make very long calls, Dan could have had his tech support people just admit that there is a small issue with long duration calls, say, "Y-Max is aware of this, it only effects a small number of users, and they are working to resolve it, and believe it will be resolved very quickly." It is somewhat B.S. but it would have kept the whole thing much neater than having hard coded 30 (then later extended to 60 minute) cut-offs and people in forums comparing notes about hard cut-off timers, and griping about it.

It is a little late now I guess. Dan should have hired me to be in the meetings where they discussed this prior to implementing the whole thing. I might have been of help to Dan keeping this cut-off stuff much more under the radar. Dan should have hired me. It might be too late for me to help cloak this cut-off timer issue, but it is not too late to bring me in before the next "issue"....maybe I'll submit my resume. I would not mind moving to Florida.

[robatino]

There's enough sleaze in the way this company does business that I'm glad they're NOT trying to hide the fact that these cutoffs are intentional. Also, random cutoffs would be worse for the user in that one couldn't plan for them, and they would give the impression that MJ has less of a handle on service quality than it actually does.

[xxM5xx]

There's enough sleaze in the way this company does business that I'm glad they're NOT trying to hide the fact that these cutoffs are intentional. Also, random cutoffs would be worse for the user in that one couldn't plan for them, ...

I agree with you from a user's perspective regarding not being able to plan on when you would be cut-off (and tell the person you have to call them back in 5 seconds).

I wasn't writing about what would be best for the user, I was writing to illustrate how this might have been kept under the radar, had Dan's people been more clever. This was written for Dan. He reads these you know.

This cut-off timer Jazz probably is a band aid for the run-on "phantom" calls. Dan implemented it, and hoped it would only be temporary while they worked to fix the root cause of phantom calls (speculations on my part, yes, but based on some things which make sense to me).

...and they would give the impression that MJ has less of a handle on service quality than it actually does.

My randomizer cut-off algorithm's contribution to negative quality of service is tiny compared to what actually resulted with the hard timers as implemented.
.
.
.

[xxM5xx]

There's enough sleaze in the way this company does business that I'm glad they're NOT trying to hide the fact that these cutoffs are intentional.

You can stop being so GLAD, because Dan DID / DOES try to hide that they implemented call cut-off timers. If they weren't trying to hide it, they would have gave their Tech Chat Support Staff information about it and a script to read to customers who bring the subject up. Tech Support was told nothing about it, nor was anything published in public view about it. They were unsuccessful in hiding it, but they did try to. Are you still glad?
.
.

[robatino]

There's enough sleaze in the way this company does business that I'm glad they're NOT trying to hide the fact that these cutoffs are intentional.

You can stop being so GLAD, because Dan DID / DOES try to hide that they implemented call cut-off timers. If they weren't trying to hide it, they would have gave their Tech Chat Support Staff information about it and a script to read to customers who bring the subject up. Tech Support was told nothing about it, nor was anything published in public view about it. They were unsuccessful in hiding it, but they did try to. Are you still glad?
.
.

I interpret that as incompetence, not deliberate secrecy. If they actually intended to hide the cutoff from the public, they wouldn't have set the cutoff time at a nice round number like 30 or 60 minutes, when the softphone itself is keeping a record of the calls.

[xxM5xx]

If he knew people would catch onto the timer's existence he would have told tech support how to respond when customers complained. CLEARLY they didn't want people to realize there was any sort of cut-off timer. How is that going to look to perspective customers? especially when it is never declared publicly that they have 30 minute call cutoff timers? Robatino, You haven't thought this through very far, have you.

Dan didn't think that far ahead, or he hoped he would have the phantom problem cured (and cutoff timers removed) before anyone caught on. He was hiding it. Delude yourself into thinking nothing is hidden, and be glad I guess. I don't care. It was hidden and you are too dense to realize that fact. It was hidden and I could have done a better job of hiding it...which is what Dan needed... a better way to hide it while his people worked on finding the root cause of phantom call run-on.
.
.

[robatino]

> and I could have done a better job of hiding it...

ANYBODY could have done a better job of hiding it - if they actually were trying to do so - since the idea of using a random number of seconds instead of a fixed round number like 1800 or 3600 is blindingly obvious (except possibly to someone working in the US Patent Office). That's why they couldn't have been trying to hide it. Neglecting to brief CS since they didn't expect many people to notice and ask about it, is not the same as hiding, which would have involved the programmers implementing a more random cutoff. CS doesn't get paid a lot and they can't be expected to know everything.

[xxM5xx]

You don't understand customer service. They don't know everything, obviously they don't know much.....how it works is they have scripts on a computer screen guiding them on how to respond. Dan DIDN'T want them to know anything about the cut-off timers..... HE DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO KNOW ABOUT THEM because he was hoping the phantom issue would be fixed before anyone caught on.

Believe me when I tell you Dan Borislow DID NOT want anyone knowing they had implemented cut-off timers, and he wasn't gonna publish that he had implemented cutoff timers. This forum is continual embarrassment to him. Most of what goes on here exposes things that Dan DOES NOT want exposed. The exposing of the cut-off timers is embarrassing to him. You think he didn't care if people found out about it. You think he intentionally told the programmers to make it 30 minutes on the button because it was fine with him if people found out about it and called customer service to complain. You are clueless pal.

[xxM5xx]

> and I could have done a better job of hiding it...

ANYBODY could have done a better job of hiding it - if they actually were trying to do so - since the idea of using a random number of seconds instead of a fixed round number like 1800 or 3600 is blindingly obvious (except possibly to someone working in the US Patent Office).

Anybody, including you.....sure once I point it out to you, it is obvious. How is it, robatino, that you don't already have a Nobel Prize? I'll bet you are a window licker that rode the short bus to school. Stop telling me how smart you are, and how everything I put in this forum is "obvious". Moron.

[robatino]

OK, everyone, lets take a poll:

1) How many think the idea of hiding the time limit by using a random number of seconds is nonobvious, and that the reason Dan didn't tell his programmers to implement it is only because he wasn't smart enough to think of it?

2) How many think Dan should hire xxM5xx because he was able to come up with the idea (putting aside the question of whether he's likely to hire someone who's publicly accused him of engaging in a coverup, and then bragged about how he could do a better job of it)?

[xxM5xx]

Whatever dude, Bill Clinton was engaged in a cover-up. Richard Nixon was engaged in a cover-up. If I'm right (and I may not be) Dan Borislow was simply trying to resolve a problem with his phone network. He implemented a TEMPORARY band aid to end calls that "may" have been phantom calls that didn't properly hang up when they were supposed to. He probably thought, or was told by his technical people that they might be able to find the root cause and have it fixed in a few days or a couple weeks. He said fine, but during the time you are trying to locate the cause we have calls where nobody is talking (phantoms) and this is consuming network resources and I'm paying termination fees of a penny a minute to the POTS system, what are we gonna do? He, or his people suggested the cut-off timer as a temporary band aid. It was 30 minutes, people noticed and complained, he extended it to 60 trying to be amenable. He never wanted this issue to surface. It did. There is no "cover-up" like trying to fire Ken Starr who had the blue dress with the stain on it. No cover-up, just a rich guy trying to fix a problem with his phone system.

So I was bragging huh? What are you, a high school student?

Of course they had not thought of what I described, if they had, they would have done it !
.
.

[robatino]

> So I was bragging huh? What are you, a high school student?

If I was a high-school student, I might have resorted to name-calling (like "dense", "clueless", "window licker", "moron") or ad hominems (like "high school student"), but I'm old enough to have the self-control not to do that.

[xxM5xx]

Accusing someone of bragging was something I recall from my childhood, not usually adult behavior. I'm pleased you took the high road and repeatedly insulted me in advanced ways that did not involve the use of psychological descriptors as I had done. Too bad I'm not more sophisticated and mature like you. Sorry, but I am what I am.

I have been studying your other posts on phoneservicesupport.com. Do you ever contribute something that helps other users here? I think if you study mine you will see that I have. You would probably be quick to say that I'm "showing off" (another adolescent behavior) but maybe you'll surprise us and admit that I actually have helped a few members here with there magicjacks. and that my participation as a contributor has some value.

[HolmanGT]

robatino, xxM5xx,

I don't know if he Dan Borislow wanted to hide it or not. Actually I find it hard to believe that a multi-millionaire is that involved in the day to day affairs of MJ's operations.

I do subjectively believe that they did not want it known as an intentional act. If they didn't want it covered up why is the rumor running around about it being some kind of test or hack defense. I think they thought they could pull it off pretty much chalked up to their normal unreliable service and then the excuse they gave, I believe again they thought they could get away with it.

I keep asking myself why they didn't seem to know that both the act and the excuse was lame as hell. Also why do they keep making major changes and not being upfront about it. There has to be a reason for this conduct. I also wonder who "they" are. lets face it Dan Borislow is not sitting behind some desk masterminding all this crude. He hired underlings a long time back to take care of all the details.

What does defy my ability to reason this out is why he has allowed this person he hired to jeopardize his rather major investment for this long.

I don't know about you guys (or girls to be politically correct) but if this was your gazillion dollars and you heard of some of this crap going on while sipping mint juleps on your yacht in the Cayman Islands didn't immediately have this obviously incompetent, rude and seriously jeopardizing a sizable investment nut case replaced in nanoseconds. Now that is something that really doesn't make sense, even if it is his brother-in-law.

[lcompton]

Good morning, robatino.

Well, since you asked...

OK, everyone, lets take a poll:

1) How many think the idea of hiding the time limit by using a random number of seconds is nonobvious, and that the reason Dan didn't tell his programmers to implement it is only because he wasn't smart enough to think of it?

Concealing a fixed call cut-off timer is obvious if there exists a true intent to conceal forced call caps. Of course, we don't know why the call caps exist in the first place, so there isn't much point in debating the point, is there? Perhaps, I'm missing something?

2) How many think Dan should hire xxM5xx because he was able to come up with the idea (putting aside the question of whether he's likely to hire someone who's publicly accused him of engaging in a coverup, and then bragged about how he could do a better job of it)?

If I worked with Dan, I would have asked him to let me help fix the alleged phantom call issue if there really is a phantom call issue. (Again, we really don't know, do we?)

As I am not a fan of unethical behavior, I wouldn't in good conscience vote for anyone who would work to further undesirable behavior -- be they a computer programmer or a politician. (And, yes, I do struggle with voting every election. In fact, this last time I actually voted for myself in one position.)

Now, it's my turn to ask a question. How can it be okay to belittle, mock, and ridicule someone with whom one disagrees? Just because politicians do it, Jay Leno does it, David Letterman does it, doesn't make it right, does it? It's one thing to state a fact, such as labeling a President (or anyone who carries out his or her orders) a traitor because he signed into law a provision, which authorizes the United States military to use chemical and biological weapons on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil (U.S.C. Title 50 Section 1520A Paragraph B). But, how does that equate to calling someone a window-licker (I'm still not quite sure what that means), moron, or heaven knows what else?

Seriously, whatever happened to civil discourse? Is it just me? Am I the only one that thinks this is wrong?

This isn't about being in high school or not, this is about being decent to one another.

So sad...

[robatino]

I have been studying your other posts on phoneservicesupport.com. Do you ever contribute something that helps other users here? I think if you study mine you will see that I have. You would probably be quick to say that I'm "showing off" (another adolescent behavior) but maybe you'll surprise us and admit that I actually have helped a few members here with there magicjacks. and that my participation as a contributor has some value.

First name-calling, then ad hominems, now you want to get into a contest over how many of our OTHER posts have been useful (like that matters here, either). Are you counting this post as one of your useful ones?

[xxM5xx]

Interesting perspective on "The Inventor" Holman. You could be 100% correct. Dan could have just hired a few guys and turned then loose to run the company, and Dan went to the horse races to hob knob with the other wealthy Floridians.

I don't know him. I keep mentioning him by name as do other on the Internet. He strikes me as more of a hands-on on guy, and this phone company seems to me to be his baby.

His daughter is on the front page of the website, his wife was on the TV infomercial and you tube videos as an adviser/partner. The wife is pictured on every single Magicjack package at Radio Shack now.

It just strikes me that this project has always been his personal thing. Mel Arthur states how Dan Borislow has a PhD. in I.T. Technology blah blah blah (no mention that the degree was an honorary degree just given to him).

This thing just seems to me to not be something he put together to employ a Brother-in-Law. I could be completely wrong, but that is how I perceive it.

I am glad you and I seem to agree that "they" didn't want it known that they intentionally did this. Like you, I also believe they thought they'd get away with it (which is why I find it plausible that it was to be temporary). Being temporary, lends me to believe it is for some sort of troubleshooting, debugging related purpose.

I might be wrong here but "they" might be a bunch of his buddies from the college where he got his Bachelor of Science Degree, Widener University. I dunno, but he doesn't like us exposing all these things we expose in this forum. I know I wouldn't if it were me.

[xxM5xx]

Don't worry Lisa. Barack Obama is going to fix everything.