text conundrum

A wierd thing this week.

My son had a text apparently from his Mum's mobile (her number as
sender, because his phone had translated the sender's number using its
phone book). He replied to it (the message was quite plausibly from her).

However, she hadn't sent the original text; nor did she receive the
reply. (In fact a small number of texts from him to her over the months
have gone adrift somewhere).


Any ideas please what might be going on here? A duplicate of Mum's
number somewhere perhaps???



--
Mike Scott (unet <at> scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England

Mike Scott wrote:
> A wierd thing this week.
>
> My son had a text apparently from his Mum's mobile (her number as
> sender, because his phone had translated the sender's number using its
> phone book). He replied to it (the message was quite plausibly from her).
>
> However, she hadn't sent the original text; nor did she receive the
> reply. (In fact a small number of texts from him to her over the months
> have gone adrift somewhere).
>
>
> Any ideas please what might be going on here? A duplicate of Mum's
> number somewhere perhaps???

Scrambled SIM card or phone memory, causing numbers and labels to be
mixed up?

David

Mike Scott wrote :
> A wierd thing this week.
>
> My son had a text apparently from his Mum's mobile (her number as sender,
> because his phone had translated the sender's number using its phone book).
> He replied to it (the message was quite plausibly from her).
>
> However, she hadn't sent the original text; nor did she receive the reply.
> (In fact a small number of texts from him to her over the months have gone
> adrift somewhere).
>
>
> Any ideas please what might be going on here? A duplicate of Mum's number
> somewhere perhaps???

I haven't tested this idea, however, I am sure the phone book only
looks at the last 6 digits of the telephone number. This would explain
why his mum's name appeared as the sender IF the actual sender's number
had the same last 6 digits as his mum's number.

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:36:16 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:

>Mike Scott wrote :
>> A wierd thing this week.
>>
>> My son had a text apparently from his Mum's mobile (her number as sender,
>> because his phone had translated the sender's number using its phone book).
>> He replied to it (the message was quite plausibly from her).
>>
>> However, she hadn't sent the original text; nor did she receive the reply.
>> (In fact a small number of texts from him to her over the months have gone
>> adrift somewhere).
>>
>>
>> Any ideas please what might be going on here? A duplicate of Mum's number
>> somewhere perhaps???
>
>I haven't tested this idea, however, I am sure the phone book only
>looks at the last 6 digits of the telephone number. This would explain
>why his mum's name appeared as the sender IF the actual sender's number
>had the same last 6 digits as his mum's number.
>

Instead of replying by text could he try calling it instead to see who
he gets to speak to ?

Stuart B wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:36:16 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike Scott wrote :
>>> A wierd thing this week.
>>>
>>> My son had a text apparently from his Mum's mobile (her number as sender,
>>> because his phone had translated the sender's number using its phone book).
>>> He replied to it (the message was quite plausibly from her).
>>>
>>> However, she hadn't sent the original text; nor did she receive the reply.
>>> (In fact a small number of texts from him to her over the months have gone
>>> adrift somewhere).
>>>
>>>
>>> Any ideas please what might be going on here? A duplicate of Mum's number
>>> somewhere perhaps???
>> I haven't tested this idea, however, I am sure the phone book only
>> looks at the last 6 digits of the telephone number. This would explain
>> why his mum's name appeared as the sender IF the actual sender's number
>> had the same last 6 digits as his mum's number.
>>
>
> Instead of replying by text could he try calling it instead to see who
> he gets to speak to ?
>
>
Talk about red faces. Son had been insistent about the number - but I
finally found last night it was a prank by one of his mates: they'd got
at his phone, changed their own entry to say "mum", then texted him.

So sorry guys, false alarm; I'll try the bright light and pliers
treatment first next time.......

(Mind you, it still doesn't explain the older missing texts though. Does
anyone have any idea about what fraction of texts go awol?)


--
Mike Scott (unet <at> scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England