Re: Jury duty revisited.

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> > If we are guaranteed a jury of peers, does that mean
> > the defendant was an alarm installer?
>
> So Jiminex finally went on trial for hitting that kid with a
> hammer?  That's nice.
>
> On a lighter note, I spoke to a buyer from an outfit in Milford,
> CT, today.  He thought we were distributors.  I explained that I
> sell to the public and referred him to a distributor in his area.
> We got to talking and I asked if he had ever run across any jobs
> from Milford Alarm.  He said they were the worst installations
> he'd ever seen, bar none.  I told him how the jackass that ran
> that outfit snookered the state license authority -- telling them
> he was doing "home improvement" so he wouldn't have to pass the
> alarm license test or the background check.  He laughed and said
> that the word "'improvement' was misleading advertising."
> Knowing the kind of belligerent jerk he is, I'm not at all
> surprised.
>
> --
>
Have you noticed how much "love" there is for you here?

You've no credibility whatsoever. So your sorry attempts to diparage
someone else have no meaning. Get the picture?  You've lied, cheated,
and stolen away any plausability to anything that you say.

You reap what you sow.

And how gratifying it is to see you get it shoved right back up your
FAT ASS.