European emergency number:112

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112 

On the particular moment of Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:38:00 -0000 in
relation to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy, "PhredBear"
<NotMyRealAddress RemoveThis @Yahoo.com> put forth:

>Giovanni,
>
>I'm just curious to know but, as a plumbed-in resident in Italy, what would
>your first impulse be if you needed serious police assistance. Would you
>call the carabinieri or the PS?

I'd call my well connected brother in law.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112 

On Feb 15, 3:13 am, Mxsmanic <mxsma....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dusty Furtile Morrocan writes:
> > I'd call my well connected brother in law.
>
> That sounds very Italian (indeed, very Latin).

Says the Mixi from the land of the Bushes and the Clintons.

B;
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112 

Dusty Furtile Morrocan writes:

> I'd call my well connected brother in law.

That sounds very Italian (indeed, very Latin).
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112 

On the particular moment of Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:13:34 +0100 in
relation to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic.RemoveThis@gmail.com> put forth:

>Dusty Furtile Morrocan writes:
>
>> I'd call my well connected brother in law.
>
>That sounds very Italian (indeed, very Latin).

Sounds stereotypical to me, which is why I wrote it.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112 

nightjar <cpb@ wrote:
> "Alan S" <nothere.RemoveThis@there.com> wrote in message
> news:gi37r3tbmvo5rt7l2kqgonj4fa61ekne38@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:48:46 GMT, john_kulp.RemoveThis@hotmail.com
>> (John Kulp) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:35 GMT, "James Silverton"
>>> <not.jim.silverton.RemoveThis@verizon.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John Kulp" <john_kulp.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:47b35fdf.22001095@news20.forteinc.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:01:00 +1100, Alan S <nothere.RemoveThis@there.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:23:19 +0000, Mike O'Sullivan
>>>>>> <mike.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nightjar <cpb@ wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Olive Green" <michaelnewport.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:e4f1af34-9339-4e23-b9ad-bbd0f787cd13@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> ...I dont suppose this works in the UK.....
>>>>>>>> It does, but 999 is much better known.
>>>>>>> A survey some time ago amongst young people in the UK
>>>>>>> revealed the fact
>>>>>>> that many thought that it was 911.
>>>>>> If you ever travel down here you will find it's 000.
>>>>> Young people in the UK might be interested to know that the US
>>>>> 911
>>>>> number was a direct copy of the UK 999 one. I guess ours gets
>>>>> better
>>>>> publicity.
>>>> Who's country is "ours" and how is 911 a copy of 999?
>>> Sorry I should have said the US. 911 came about as a result of a
>>> staff member of former Senator Ernest Gruening of Alaska having taken
>>> a trip to the UK and noticing it there in 1966. In the 1967-68
>>> timeframe, Senator Gruening was running for reelection and called to
>>> his Washington office from Juneau for a suggestion on a speech he had
>>> to give that night in Juneau. The staff member recommended
>>> establishing a 911 fire, police and emergency number taking the 9 from
>>> the British 999 number and the 11 from the 211 for time and weather at
>>> the time and the 411 information number which still exists.
>> Back in the days of dial phones I often felt the best choice
>> would have been 111. So much quicker to dial in an
>> emergency, and much simpler when all three digits are the
>> same.
>
> 999 was chosen because the 9 could be found by touch on a phone that might
> have fallen to the floor, by reference to the finger stop. IIRC there was
> also something in the way that uniselectors worked that made it a better
> choice.
>
> Colin Bignell
>
>
If I remember the old dial phones, 9 was the fastest number to dial.
Zero and one took the longest. Of course this was a North American phone.

--
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112 

Wolfgang Schwanke:

> Sooner or later, the masses may realise that tax cuts put peanuts in
> the pockets of the many, and fortunes in the pockets of the few.

....where the many may be thrilled with the peanuts, not caring about the
fortunes of the few.

--
Erick

"I would have written a shorter post ... if I had the time"
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112 

John Kane writes:

> If I remember the old dial phones, 9 was the fastest number to dial.
> Zero and one took the longest. Of course this was a North American phone.

The fastest was 1; the slowest was 0. The number 9 was right next to 0.
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112 

"John Kane" <jrkrideau.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fp4seo$fb0$5@registered.motzarella.org...
....
> If I remember the old dial phones, 9 was the fastest number to dial. Zero
> and one took the longest. Of course this was a North American phone.

UK phones were numbered 1 to 9 then 0, which was the number next to the
finger stop, so 9 was the second longest to dial and IIRC, it was that which
made it the second best choice - having a large number of pulses sent
minimised the risk of false triggering of the emergency number. The best
choice would have been 0, but that was already allocated to dialling the
operator. There was also the point that no exchange name started with any
combination of W Y and Z, so the number 999 was available.

Colin Bignell
 >> Stay informed about: European emergency number:112