Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 16

= November 16 =

Fraudulent credit on my account
I have a credit on my recent two bank statements that is clearly fraudulent. It reads something like this. I know this is nonsense, because I am internet savvy (not stupid enough to sign up for something I don't want), and I work at a bank, so I am decently savvy with finances. As such, I know I did not actually sign up for this offer - they can not pull out the "he just didn't read the fine print" argument like they do with everyone else (I can think of only one possible exception: when I signed up for a one time deal citywide wifi, it may have been stuck in the fine print. I plan on checking thoroughly). I know how to get my money bank (i.e., Regulation E): what I want to know is if there is a way to report this kind of thing to the SEC or whoever, because my google search clearly shows this has been occurring for a while without law enforcement intervention. My credit card appears to have its number taken and sold to these guys. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean a debit, right? Money taken out of your account? Contact your bank, they will have procedures you need to go through to report it. --Tango (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Correct. But I need to check old bank statements - if I have any more than 60 days old, I won't be able to get it back unless I call the company directly (google reveals they do so if pressed). Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, I have faint memories of this happening to me a couple of years ago. It turned out that it was a checkbox I had ticked when i bought some computer equipment online.  They (unethically in my view) kept me on for a monthly charge to give me "access to future discounts" or some other garbage like that...


 * The SEC just regulates publicly traded securities. You would want a consumer group like perhaps [] this one.  Your other alternative would be to start up a small claims court case, and send them a letter letting them know (if you can find an address and/or legal company name).  If it's a small amount, they'll likely offer a refund rather than flying in, or retaining a lawyer. NByz (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Many banks also have fraud-protection policies, and will not hold you accountable for fraudulent charges against your account. You should probably first contact you bank, and find out what can be done about the charge.  I would recommend asking to discuss the matter in person at the bank, as the people who answer the phone lines are often harder to deal with, and its much easier to get things done in person.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Check your bank's fee information very carefully, though. I once had an erroneous debit charge on my account.  It was for a small amount, but I instructed to bank to trace where it came from and remove it.  And so they did.  However, they charged me twice as much as the original debit had been in fees.  When I complained they referred to a section in their fees policy for my account.  According to that they had every right to charge that fee.  (They did lose a customer because of it, though.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why, historically, has America not crushed dissent and allowed great freedom?
I won't expand too much here, don't want question removed. What is the history and/or reason for Americas freedom vs almost every other country, regardless of risks? I&#39;m Outta Here! (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A few reasons:
 * Magna Carta. British based societies value individual freedoms far more than others. Even former African colonies follow this to some extent. Example: lots of governmental subdivisions allows more local freedom. Compare this with say, Cuba.
 * Most Americans are children of people fleeing old world. Puritans are only one example of many. Most of these people left Old World for American Dream and personal freedoms. Diversity requires toleration. Look at old world, from Catalonia, to China, to Persia. They all fight over small things. Americans had melting pot.
 * American history. US left Britain for sake of these freedoms. It's indoctrinated into us from young school age as result. I tend to think this is far less important than other reasons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your defintion of "freedom" is, but the US is certainly not the only nation that enshrines notions of "freedom" in its constitution and laws - almost every nation founded since the Enlightenment is founded on such principles. There are plenty of countries in the world where "crushing dissent" is not the norm.  You might also want to consider comparative incarceration rates before deciding the US is a uniquely "free" nation. FiggyBee (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While the Enlightenment may have been the first modern expression of the ideal of individual freedom, it has been argued that it was also the beginning of the end of the substance, because it advocated a rational top-down legal system against the disorderly polycentric order that had developed since the late Middle Ages. It's easier for a single center to become corrupt and tyrannical than for a centreless system. —Tamfang (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Before we get too misty-eyed, it should be noted that America's history of free speech is not exactly unblemished. See the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Comstock laws, the Sedition Act of 1918, Red Scare, McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, etc. as examples where the ideal of free speech ran up against fears of political and cultural instability. When things get bad, "the gloves come off", as the outgoing administration liked to say, and then all sorts of things incompatible with what people usually consider core American values start happening behind closed doors. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And let's not forget McCarthyism, a force that's still strong enough that a recent Presidential candidate thought merely invoking the "s" word could win him an election... (EC: you didn't, I see :P) FiggyBee (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you "crush dissent" then there is little "freedom" except to obey those in power. People who came to America often fled oppression, but oppressed others as soon as they were able, whether it was the Pilgrims, William Penn and the Quakers, or Roger Williams and the Baptists. The colonists in America also enslaved Africans and sought to exterminate Native Americans. Edison (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Edison, I suspect you read the post like I first did, as "Why has America not (both) crushed dissent and allowed great freedom", whereas I think the poster actually meant "Why has America (both) not crushed dissent and (also) allowed great freedom?" DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See also American exceptionalism. The USA is by no means the only country to allow great freedom, despite your claim that "almost every other country" does not.  You will find that while the USA is generally considered free, the more detailed indices show that it is not considered to be in the 14-strong group of "most free" nations, partly because its press freedom is only "satisfactory".  On the Freedom of the Press rankings, the USA is ranked 36th.  Gwinva (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Free speech of course is almost never absolute in any area. It is often dictated by political purposes. The Fairness Doctrine is one particularly sore spot among conservatives (and rightly so) as it appears to be aimed at right wing talk radio. Other times it is abridged for moral purposes: laws against child pornography, etc. But you already knew all this.
 * That said, no matter what any other country (or person within the US) claims, I firmly believe the US is at the top of countries with freedoms, even with things like the Patriot Act (you might note that as unpopular as it is, even many "free" countries like Sweden have stricter laws). Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain your reasons for that belief? In particular, would you care to explain your definition of "free"? Which country is the most free is going to depend very heavily on how you define freedom. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre, you mentioned the Puritans but I thought they left England because they found that society too tolerant? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you define "tolerant". English society circa 1620 was more "tolerant" of certain social practices than perhaps the Puritans would have for themselves, but that wasn't what really drove them from England.  It was that English society, and government policies, was also rather "intolerant" of the Puritans as a group, and actively drove them from the country.  After the Hampton Court Conference and Richard Bancroft ascension to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, things got rather hot for the Puritans.  Many of the famous Scrooby congregation, who would go on to found Plymouth colony, were imprisoned in Boston, Lincolnshire for a time, as one example.  So again, like with the word "freedom", you have to be careful how you define "tolerant".  Puritans were more strict than the rest of the CofE at the time, but they were also regularly and officially harrassed for their beliefs... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would highly recommend the excellent Story of American Freedom (amazon link) by Eric Foner, which is a history of the concept of freedom throughout American history. An interesting account of how notions of freedom have changed over time and how these concepts have driven US political history. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How many #1 hits did Johnny Cash, Elvis, and Moe Bandy have?
You might want to try the Entertainment Ref Desk for this question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So moved. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How many things have been described as great fakes?
I am thinking here of two amusing literary examples: was it Oscar Wilde who referred to Debrett's Peerage as the greatest work of fiction in the English language? And a century later, Douglas Adams said much the same thing about the Greek ferry timetable. I'd like to collect more examples. Any ideas? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Milli Vanilli won awards for their music when they were actually lip synching. That type of thing? Dismas |(talk) 14:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Never heard of them, but the article is revealing! BrainyBabe (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to find the Wilde. But this is from Dirk Gently, chapter 4:
 * "Well, what you have to understand, young lady, is that the Greeks, not content with dominating the culture of the Classical world, are also responsible for the  greatest,  some would  say the only, work of true creative imagination produced this century as well. I refer of  course  to  the  Greek  ferry timetables.  A  work  of  the sublimest fiction. Anyone who has travelled in the Aegean will confirm this. Hmm,  yes.  I  think so." BrainyBabe (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh! I love Douglas Adam's writing - and ordinarily, I'd trust what he wrote with my life.  But I travelled around the Greek islands using their "flying dolphin" hydrofoil services off and on through the 1980's and 90's - and I found them to be spectacularly reliable and invariably on-schedule.  I strongly recommend that way of travel - and the Greek islands are the most amazing places to explore.  SteveBaker (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Turk? I'll add something else when it comes to mind. --Taraborn (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire, which [Voltaire said to be "neither holy, nor Roman, nor Empire?" [[User:Edison|Edison]] (talk)


 * I would look through Category:Forgery, Category:Hoaxes and Category:Fraud for some ideas, and to kill this thread with (a misuse of) Godwin's law I will suggest the Hitler Diaries. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In 2003, Shaun Greenhalgh and dad revealed but not before scamming art and musseum experts around the country. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Piltdown Man ? 86.53.80.11 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And its see also section: Archeoraptor. If you mean literary hoaxes, Australia's a breeding ground for them, from Ern Malley to The Hand That Signed the Paper. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Learning to play the Mandolin
I have never learned to read music - I have never played ANY kind of a musical instrument in my life (I am 61) - I am now retired, happy, and active - and for some inexplicable reason, I have the urge to play a musical instrument - not ANY musical instrument mind, but a mandolin. I don't own one - I don't know anyone who owns one - and I don't even know any local schools or teachers - not even a shop that stores them. So - 2 questions - first, how difficult (comparatively speaking) is it to learn to play reasonably well from scratch - and secondly, is there a name for such a mid-life compulsion/crisis. I know some folk go sailing around the world single-handed so I know I am not alone - but why?? 92.20.215.140 (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I taught myself to play the mandolin at age 50, mostly for playing chords. But then I already played the guitar. It took me 2 months. I'd say that the level of difficulty is about the same as the guitar. The mandolin has frets, so it's definitely a lot easier than playing the violin. It's more difficult to tune a mandolin than a guitar though, so I'd recommend investing in a suitable electronic tuner. I would expect any decent shop that sells guitars to also have mandolins. Can't answer your second question. --NorwegianBluetalk 22:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The website Mandolincafe may be of interest to you. Note that it includes an archive of (presumably legal) mp3 downloads, some of which are very good. --NorwegianBluetalk 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't see any reason why you can't learn. It can be harder for older people to learn new things, but many have tried and succeeded. Finding a teacher is difficult. The tuning is, if I recall correctly, the same as a violin. A violinist might be able to teach you something (finding notes, reading music), as would a guitarist (technique, music), but they will both have a little bit af trouble adapting. Between the two of them you could get the basics.
 * As to the last question, if you haven't read midlife crisis yet, it's a good idea (the article, not the crisis). In Australia, the phenomenon known as [grey nomad]]s is getting well known. Empty nest syndrome might also be a factor. Steewi (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How difficult? It will take the rest of your life, so you need to start learning now. Is there a basis? Opportunity, desire... In Groundhog Day the character Phil Connors' life is repeating itself, forcing him to reevaluate. Among his solutions is to learn jazz piano and impress his friends, and yes, he gets the girl. undefined Julia Rossi (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a pianist/guitarist/mandolinist/violinist, I'd say the mandolin is the easiest for the four to pick up. For chords, many common chords are two- or three-fingered, and bar chords are easier than on a guitar. For melodies, the consistent fifth interval between strings makes it easier for my brain to wrap itself around a pattern (as compared to the guitar's 4th-4th-4th-3rd-4th, which gets me every time). The only exception is that since there are only 4 strings, there is less flexibility in voicing chords, so more complex chords can be real excercises in dexterity. jeffjon (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re the guitar/mandolin comparison: A trick that might be of interest to guitarists following this thread, is the following: If you take the four deepest strings of a guitar chord (provided the chord includes these strings, obviously), and mirror-image them, you get a mandolin chord. Example:


 * --NorwegianBluetalk 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The other issue with a Mandolin is that, unlike other similar instruments like a Guitar or Violin, it has absolutely NO sustain really to speak of. At a standard tempo, even an accoustic guitar has enough sustain to play individual notes.  A mandolin is fairly limited in this regard, it is almost ALWAYS used as a rhythm instrument, and does require some rather fast right-hand strumming, usually 8th or 16th notes, to maintain a good sound.  There are some mandolin players who are able to play a "tune" or "melody" on the mandolin, most famously Bill Monroe, but this basically requires lighting fast fret-work on the left hand.  You still play it "full strum" with the right hand, and the melody is generally obtained by rapid chord-suspensions and the like.  It is a fairly easy instrument to play competantly, but it can be quite hard to reach "the next level" as it were... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the mp3 section of Mandolin Café, you'll find many fine examples in various genres of the mandolin being used as the lead instrument, including Ludvig van Beethoven's sonatina for the mandolin. Not all of these require a virtuoso player. The lack of sustain is usually compensated for by using tremolo. --NorwegianBluetalk 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but tremelo play is quite a difficult skill, given the extremely close spacing of the mandolin strings, and the relative speed and precision required to hit ONLY the strings you want, repeatedly, and at the correct rhythm and tempo. Its certainly more difficult than playing the same tune on a guitar, where you can hit each note once, and let it ring until the next note is needed... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, Louis McManus... Julia Rossi (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Volume of iPod vs Speaker volume
Suppose if I was to plug in an iPod Touch into a pair of computer speakers that have a rotating-knob volume control and suppose the volume units on the two units are interchangable. Is there any different, in terms of sound quality, if I turn my iPod volume to say, 40 volume units and my speaker to 60 volume units compared to if I turn my iPod to 60 volume units and speaker to 40 volume units? Acceptable (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When I listen to my iPod in my car, I find I get much better quality if I turn up the car stereo's volume than the iPod volume. If I turn the iPod all the way up, I get clicky noises and distortions. Cars (and computers) are intended to make louder noise than iPods and can handle it better. Also, turning the iPod to top volume tends to deplete the battery faster. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * IPod source -> IPod Amplifier -> Speaker Amplifier -> Speakers. If there is interference, you'll want the IPod output as large as possible and turn the speaker amps down so that any pickup before the speaker amp is amplified the least. If on the other hand the IPod manages to overload the input stage of the speaker amp then you'lll get distortion and want to turn the Ipod down and the speaker up. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Simplest answer...Do a test. Listen to both setups, stick with the one you find sounds the best. Try it with some heavy music to maximise chance of distorsion/noise-issues, and try it with some stuff that has very delicate pieces to see if there's a difference there. Your ears are much better at decided what setup works best (for you) than the technical guide or specialist knowledge. There is no right answer unfortunately. Personally I don't enjoy my music to be boom-y or sound too bass-y (base-y?) but some people I know love it that way, so whilst some speakers are technically better, ultimately the most important thing is your preference. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally in my car I use Ipod on full volume, stereo on about the same level I have for my normal FM radio - gets a lovely sound no distortion at all... If I switch that and turn Ipod down and stereo up not only do I find I get too much bass sound that drowns out the other elements of the track, but I also get more interference from other parts of the car - ie if I've got anything charging through the cigarette lighter like a sat nav etc...  But having the Ipod on full drain it within about 3-4 hours so I have to always carry an in-car charger with me for long journeys...  As with the above post, it's gotta come down to personal preference at the end of the day... Gazhiley (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Listening to MP3's with high-end audio system
Would I notice a significant increase in audio quality if I am listening to 128-192 kbs MP3's on a Bose Wave Sounds System or some other high-end audio system compared to if I was listening to it on some decent $100 speakers? If not, what file types would I have to listen to in order to notice the increase in audio quality? Acceptable (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an audiophile, so I can't give you many specific details, but in my experience the answer is yes. It will sound significantly better on better hardware. However, if you compare it to the original, high-quality versions, the decrease in quality will become more obvious (in my experience, mp3s sounds better on good hardware than cds on crappy hardware, but cds on good hardware sounds better than mp3s on good hardware). If you want to have as good a quality as you can get, use either high-bitrate versions of mp3s (256 kbs and up), or lossless formats like Apple Lossless or FLAC (these will sound exactly like a cd, they contain identical data) 83.250.202.208 (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay vs Cuba
Hypothetically, suppose if Cuba wanted to re-claim the land that US Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is occupying, would they be able to do it? Assuming that Guantanamo Bay does not receive any external aid and must solely rely on their current resources and that Cuba can divert their entire military forces to attack the base. Acceptable (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * C'mon, you will never see this in print (except perhaps here) but Cuba relies on the RENT that the USA pays to Fidel and his cohorts. How else can Cuba afford to train all those doctors? And as to ATTACKING Guantanamo from either inside or outside the island??????? NEVER. The international community would NEVER stand for it. It ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. Fidel and his principles are more loved than John Lennon. But when he goes?? I guess a bit of internal strife - followed by a Cuban Disney World and all that goes with it - including a reality Fidel show. What a bloody shame awaits those lovely people in Cuba.92.20.215.140 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, the reason you "will never see this in print" is because Cuba does not accept rent from the US, because it claims the lease in invalid. See our article on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. They used to sell the US water but decided to stop doing that. I don't think Cuba gets any profit from having Guatanamo there, and I don't think it has anything at all to do with its medical system. If you're going to spout off about what you "never see in print" you might as well do the five seconds of research it takes to determine whether it is actually true or not, or whether it is just uninformed nonsense. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, it would never happen, but it's an interesting hypothetical question. According to Cuba, they have about 60,000 personnel. Guantanamo Bay has a population of about 8,500 according to, and those aren't all military (it includes dependants and contractors), so the Cubans have them massively outnumbered. Cuba's military is rather out of date now, though, I think - it hasn't really had an upgrade since the end of the Cold War. If the Cubans could get the help of the prisoners, then they might be able to pull it off - an attack from the outside timed to coincide with a massive prison revolt could work. Of course, if they actually tried it, the base would get very swift outside help from the rest of the US military and would surely win. --Tango (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the Cubans couldn't take one measley base, assuming no reinforcements (as you stipulated). It's worth not underestimating the Cuban military—even aside from Bay of Pigs and all that, they've shown themselves to be much more sophisticated than the "omg Castro stooge" stereotype that the US has promulgated since their dictator lost out to another dictator in the Revolution. They have some outdated equipment but it doesn't take the most sophisticated equipment in a world to take over a base (it's another thing if you're talking about talking about jet-on-jet or jet-on-tank interactions, in which high tech can make a big difference).--98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say the entire military forces of Cuba could take over Guantanamo, if for some bizarre reason, no support from outside US forces could be provided. The prisoners at GITMO wouldn't be much help, though, being only a few hundred.  Note that the US has other military forces in a similar situation, such as those on the border with North Korea.  However, the presence of "sacrificial troops" there ensures an immediate US response to any invasion. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could a larger force take a smaller force from a more powerful nation, which was unable to reinforce or resupply in a timely fashion? See Battle of the Little Bighorn . See Battle of Isandlwana. See Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Edison (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Falklands war ... Gandalf61 (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good example. Argentina easily took them over, but only until the British fleet arrived and took them back.  That was quite a wasted effort on the part of Argentina, whose leadership was quickly dumped as a result.. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tactically it would probably be a cinch. Strategicly it would be beyond stupid.  You don't beat up the little brother from the family with 12 kids if you're an only child.  Sure, the Cuban military could probably massacre the American forces there.  But an unprovoked attack on American forces would also likely not exactly go unnoticed.  Its why the American people have always supported the Afghan War more than the Iraq War.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe some Cuban general who wants democracy in Cuba might order an invasion of GITMO, knowing it will immediately result in a US invasion, overthrow of the government, and US rebuilding. Since Cuba would likely lack the insurgency and ethnic/religious civil war of Iraq and Afghanistan, casualties would be light. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * An international relations joe job??? I love it... ROFLMAO. That;s great... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (Faked-identity conspiracy theories are way older than spam.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Telephone training
If you feel rather insecure talking on the phone, how could you train to be better at it? What are possible general information phones -excluding 911- I could call to get some practice? Mr.K. (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could talk to people on skype. I found a number of google hits for message boards of people looking for other people to practice English, for example, which might be a low-stress situation for a native English speaker. Darkspots (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could use the 'phone a friend' option. If you're willing to admit it to them, you can arrange with a friend to call them and just talk for a while as practice. Once you can talk casually, you could practice a more formal phone technique with them, as if you are talking in a business situation, giving information. Set up some role playing, where your friend is the secretary for a business and you need some information about the business (opening hours, making an appointment, availability of a product, etc.). Once you can do that comfortably, switch roles. A good friend could help you do it, even if you're just in the next room.
 * If you're worried about costs, you could use a set of two phones in the one house with an intercom system, so you can talk to someone in the next room, without being charged by the phone company. If you're having trouble that interferes heavily with the way you lead your life, you should ask your doctor about a therapist who can help you understand why you have the trouble and help you get over it improve your lifestyle. Steewi (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit in above line for non-offensive sounding sentence. Steewi (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Googling for "Telephone training" produced about 8.8 million hits(!) - but most seem to be for telephone call center operatives. You can go on one of those courses for a few hundred bucks - there seem to be many DVD's with self-help stuff.   However, for 'telephone anxiety' (let's say), those things are unlikely to help you much.  Googling "Telephone anxiety" got me 5.5 million hits(!) - the first few of which seemed very relevent.  Our article on Social phobia discusses it briefly.  SteveBaker (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to hate talking to strangers on the phone in a fairly irrational way. I got a job working on a political campaign and made hours and hours of cold calls. Got to talk to a lot of crazy characters, and now I have no phone issues. You could try volunteering/working for a political campaign next election season. Some politicians (e.g. Obama, to great effect) even post lists of phone numbers on websites and you can just call from your house. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)