Re: For Robert

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:do3rf1lmo6oi425bfokt2rv9fkcck5krev@xxxxxxxxxx

> Not in the least.  I was responding to Olson.

Why respond to me at all??  The "original poster" which I clearly indicated
I quoted was Bob Worthy.  Perhaps a remedial course in Usenet would help you
to understand.  I even included the Google link to the original post...
Sheesh!!!


> I won't debate your age but your assertion that you don't engage
> in childish behavior online is a lie.  That's like Sabodish
> pretending to be intelligent or Olson pretending to be... well,
> anything.  Everyone knows it's not true.

There you go again!!!  Flaming me *again*, when all I've done is try to be
helpful...


>
>>> Which accusations?
>>
>> The accusations that you have accused people of
>> relaying about you. No need to be coy, Robert.
>
> Relaying?  Care to be more specific?

You don't understand what "relaying" means??


>
>>>> Did you author the "Testimony"? Simple question,
>>>> simple answer...
>>>
>>> That one's easy.  Not in it's current form.  Someone else edited
>>> it.  The original message was a private e-mail between myself and
>>> another person.  That individual placed the e-mail on a web site
>>> without my permission.  I asked him to remove it and he did.
>>> However, the lengthy story posted on the MM's hate web site has
>>> little to do with what I originally wrote.
>>
>> Is that a big *YES* or a big *NO*?
>
> The answer is quite clear.  I wrote something but not what has
> been posted repeatedly in this newsgroup by an idiot from NJ,
> commonly known as the "MM".  I make no effort to hide the facts.
> Many years ago I did some stupid things of which I am not at all
> proud.  I paid dearly for those mistakes, nearly lost not only my
> freedom but my life as well.  I learned from my mistakes, grew up
> and changed.

<snip>

In other words a big "YES".



> I think you meant to say "outweighs," but that is not true in
> this newsgroup.  Most of the idiots, including several of your
> pals, prefer to accept any wild claims without even bothering to
> check them out.

You mean like your "claiming" I'm a "counter clerk" and work for a "small
distributor in Vancouver, B. C."??


> That's why your buddies made the absurd
> assertion that I murdered someone.  They read third-grade trash
> from Sabodish and simply accepted it as fact, then repeated it in
> the bogus complaint to the SA.

Let's see...  You were at the wheel of a car when you fell asleep and
crashed.  A young woman who was a passenger in the car was killed.  You were
directly responsible for her death.  I'd suggest you look up the meaning of
the word "murder".


>
> That is also why the complaint was so easily seen by the
> investigator as nothing more than a personal attack.  I showed
> him Sabodish's web site and Mugford's Usenet posts.  It took less
> than 10 minutes for him to see your pals for the belligerent
> fools they are.  End of investigation.  Case closed.

Ummmm...    Sure Robert...



> Bullshit!  The SA sent an investigator.  He found no evidence of
> wrongdoing, period.  In his report he stated that there was no
> reason to continue.

Post the report.


>
>> New laws closing any questions came into
>> effect. I already sent you the legislation.
>
> The state law says nothing about contracts performed outside the
> state of Florida by third party monitoring facilities outside the
> state for customers outside the state.  Our legislature, your BS
> notwithstanding, has neither an interest in nor the legal
> authority to regulate such services.

But when you're providing a contractual service as an agent and collecting
the fee *in Florida* for that service, you fall under the Statute.  I note
Bass Burglar Alarms no longer provides that service.  Co-incidence ain't
it??  You get investigated for unlicensed activity and conveniently decide
that providing monitoring service is no longer worthwhile...  How did you
put it??  It's not the "profit center" you'd thought it would be (or words
to that effect).


>
> You and/or the rest of the IB have been claiming for years that I
> was about to be shut down, that my business is failing, [insert
> flame-of-the-week], etc.  Yet I'm still here and my business is
> now the largest online security business in the state.

Heh...  Bob never "claimed" anything of the sort.  That's always been
Sabodish.  As for your being the "largest online security business in the
state", I sincerely doubt that.

> I'll be
> doing the same thing and more of it until I retire in a few more
> years.

And filling this group (and others) with your invective, lies, and
misleading comments...



> The statute governs contracting for services performed for
> structures located in Florida.  Try reading the whole thing some
> time.  I did.  It's really quite clear on that.  Read the
> definition of monitoring service.  Read the exceptions.  After
> you've done some real homework -- instead of posting BS about how
> you wrote the law and handed it to the legislature to sign it for
> you or whatever other drivel you like to spout -- come back and
> apologize to everyone who reads this newsgroup for your
> deliberate misrepresentations.

How about your "deliberate misrepresentations"??  Your outrageous lies??
Personal attacks??



> I didn't say you had.  Your involvement was limited to
> consultation with the other morons who did the deed.  Don't
> forget I have a printout of their e-mails conversations with you.

Heh...  Sure...


>
>>>> The part about Robert not being home when the State
>>>> Investigator came over (several times) was particularly
>>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> Care to substantiate that?
>>
>> Only that the investigators were at your home at
>> different times to never find you home and even
>> talked with neighbors to find out about your where
>> abouts or your return. It is hearsay but from the DBPR.
>
> It is hearsay, but not from the DBPR.  It was a BS post from
> another of the idiots in ASA -- nothing more.

Really??  You should read the Google link I supplied in its entirety...
None of the "idiots in ASA" posted this.



> Strangely enough, the State Attorney's office, after reviewing
> the *facts* collected by the investigator and comparing them to
> the absurd allegations by Mugford's pals, determined that you are
> wrong.  Of course, that's only *fact* so feel free to ignore it.

So...  You won't sue Sabodish because he's "judgement proof"...  What about
Mugford??  According to you he's not only abused his position on the board,
he's used it to personally attack you...  If there was *any* truth to your
absurd allegation regarding his involvement...  If you had copies of the
emails that were exchanged between Bob, Norm, and others concerning you...
then I'd suggest you contact your attorney and file suit...  These guys have
far more to lose than Sabodish...


>
>> That investigator could have been to a funeral home...
>
> How sad.
<snip the usual nonsense>


>> It is not their job to find you guilty or innosent...
>
> They never find anyone innosent.

Uh-huh...  And I'd suggest "Rfreshing" your web page...
http://www.bass-home.com/MonitoringContract.pdf



>
>> And besides, your web pages were read prior to sending
>> the investigator out and obviously, at least one State
>> Attorney, found probable cause or they wouldn't have sent
>> out an investigator for more information...
>
> They found probably cause to investigate.  Upon investigating
> they determined there was no evidence of wrongdoing so they
> closed the matter.
>
>> You are probably lucky, guilty or innosent
>
> I don't know anyone who is innosent.

That's "rfreshing".


>> ...there were questions between the State Attorneys
>> about some interpetations...
>
> You keep saying that but there's nothing in the investigative
> report and nothing in the public documentation to support it.  As
> best I can tell, you're either repeating BS from one of the other
> idiots or lying.  I don't care which it is.

Post the report then...  How about the emails??