Re: For Robert

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:do3rf1lmo6oi425bfokt2rv9fkcck5krev@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Since you've forgotten Bob Worthy's questions,
> >>> I thought I'd dig 'em up for you...  as a
> >>> professional courtesy.
> >
> >>> "I wasn't refering to suing someone Robert.
> >>> Just prove these suppposed "lies" are untrue
> >>> here on this NG....
> >>
> >> Which lies?  You've told so many...
> >
> > If you are confused about who you are answering...
>
> Not in the least.  I was responding to Olson.  He was the
> previous poster.  Perhaps a remedial course in Usenet would help
> you to understand threaded conversations.

You are laughable Robert.....go read the above again. You responded to a
post by me. Olson only reposted it for you.You fluster so easily.

> > I can understand, but if you are saying that I have
> > told lies then you are terribly mistaken. I am too old
> > for childish antics.
>
> your assertion that you don't engage
> in childish behavior online is a lie.

 Let take a poll...Does anyone else out there believe that posting to RBL is
all lies?

> >> 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 constantly are accusing people of "relaying" information about you that
you say is all bogus. **Relay** the act of passing along. What don't you
understand about this?

> >>> Did you author the "Testimony"? Simple question,
> >>> simple answer...

> The answer is quite clear.  I wrote something,  I make no effort to hide
the facts. I did some stupid things of which I am not at all
> proud.  I paid dearly for my mistakes, grew up
> and changed.  What happened to you?

I am quite happy with my life. Did well in school, raised two sons that are
both doing well, sold a construction business, built a national security
company which was sold and presently have three other businesses, considered
a leader in the industry, voted "Most Valuable Person in the Industy" in
2001....anything else you would like to know?

> I also built and ran a small, modestly successful central station
> alarm company, protecting homes and businesses throughout CT and
> a few other states until I sold the business a few years ago.

I can only go by what has been posted here, but the question is, was this a
receiver in your home? Or, did you have a real CS? A simple yes or no will
do.

> Among my clients were state and federal judges, several policemen
> and countless others.

**Small** modestly successfull...**Countless** others.....How does that
calculate?

> Now my business is primarily focused on online sales of alarms,
> home automation, structured wiring, multi-room audio/video
> systems, intercoms and CCTV systems.

And recently, intering into expressed or implied contracts (this is
addressed later in the post)

> >> It makes no difference whether I challenge or ignore the
> >> nonsense you and the other idiots post.

It is the **nonsense**, as you put it, that everyone keeps bringing up, yet
you don't challange it even when given the opportunity. Appearance weighs
alot in everyones mind.

>>  You continue spouting trash either way.

Pot, kettle, black

 > That is also why the complaint was so easily seen by the
> investigator as nothing more than a personal attack.

The statements that have been made about you on this NG where not the reason
for the complaint against you and you know it.

  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.

If you say so, but still had absolutely nothing to do with the complaint
investigation.

 >End of investigation.

But not off the radar

 >Case closed.

What have you received saying so?

Care to
> play again?

Wasn't playing to begin with. Having **knowledge of** doesn't make a player.

> > ignoring the issue by dropping out. I don't recall spouting
> > trash about you unless it is the kicks and giggles that you
> > refer to.
>
> Your idea of "kicks and giggles" might be somewhat different if
> you were on the receiving end.

No different than you calling people idiots, morons, going RL on people,
etc. I have never belittled or tried to hurt people like you have, Robert. I
have said before that you are awfully thin skinned.

 You behave like a schoolyard
> punk,

haven't called anyone a "punk" either....

 >joining a few loud-mouthed bullies because you haven't the
> integrity to stand up and say they're wrong.

Are you saying that I have no integrity because I didn't come to your
defense on something that I didn't  initiate?

  Then you try to
> excuse your repugnant behavior saying it's all just "innocent
> fun."

What else is on this NG that deals with RBL. Entertainment and much of it is
hilarious. I am sorry if you feel differently, but I call it as I see it.

> > The State Attorney's office disagreed on the investigation
> > information but that was prior to July 1, 2005...
>
> 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.

OK

> > 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.

OK

> You and/or the rest of the IB have been claiming for years that I
> was about to be shut down,

I have never said that.

>that my business is failing,

I have never said that.

[insert
> flame-of-the-week], etc.

What?

 Yet I'm still here and my business is
> now the largest online security business in the state.

Anyone can claim that about their business. Where is this **honor**
documented?

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

OK

> >>> "Excuse me, you aren't doing contract monitoring service?
> >
> >> Not in Florida.
> >> The agreement and the services offered therein are
> >> not offered in Florida.  You seem to have a hard time
> >> understanding that

> > No, you choose to ignore the fact, as stated in the
> > Statute, that if you enter into a contract for compensation,
> > you are in the contracting business...

> The statute governs contracting for services performed for
> structures located in Florida.  Try reading the whole thing some
> time.

Along with others, through the years, I have been instrumental in writing
and rewriting it, I believe I know it quiet well, thank you.

>I did.

Not completely or you would understand more about it. To prove your vast
knowledge on the subject, please answer this question, "How many chapters
and what Statutes and Codes do the alarm contracting laws cover?", in the
State of Florida.

 It's really quite clear on that.  Read the
> definition of monitoring service.

I know what it says and I know where the SA office differs on their
interpetation and what the initial intent was.

> Read the exceptions.

I know what they say.

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

You obviously don't understand the legislative process posting  things like
this

 >or whatever other drivel you like to spout

only facts.

-- come back and
> apologize to everyone who reads this newsgroup for your
> deliberate misrepresentations.

BAAAHAAAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

> > which is the real issue, regardless of what the service
> > is.
>
> The real issue is the entire statute.

Only one?

If you ever read (and
> understood) the law you'd realize how absurd your position is.

Is it really? If you think there is only one Statute then your position is
the one that is absurd. Interpet this part of one of the Statutes and then
tell me if my statement is absurd.
"Contracting" means, except where exempted in this part, (which is your
online sales) engages in business as a contractor performing alarm work for
**compensation** and includes, but is not limited to, performance of any of
the acts found in subsections 2 and 12 which define the services
**offered**, negotiation for a bid of, or **attempted sale** of these
services requires the corresponding licensure. Section 12 states: The term
means any person, firm, corporation that under an **express or implied
contract**; or that undertakes, **offers to undertake**, **purports to have
the capacity to undertake** or submits a bid to engage in the business of
electrical or alarm contracting; or that does itself or by or **through
others** engage in the business of electrical or alarm contracting.

> The other possibility is that you already know I'm right but
> you're lying.
>
> So which is it?  Are you ignorant or are you lying?  It's a
> simple question.  Give me your answer.

Neither. See there Robert, one word answers are easy.

> > You seem to want to hang your hat on the definition
> > of what monitoring is and continue to ignore the fact
> > that you are receiving compensation through your
> > business...
>
> You're being absurd.  The law defines monitoring as a service
> performed for structures in Florida.  Services rendered outside
> of Florida are not covered under the law.

Flaw, leaving to much up to interpetation, that is being corrected.

  You may wish it were
> different but it isn't.  Your claim that "new laws" are coming is
> irrelevant.

To your investigation, maybe, and that is what was in disagreement at the SA
office.

> > Is one that enters into contracts for compensation, not
> > a "contractor"?  You need to read the Statute in its
> > entirety, put yourself or your business in each section
> > and ask yourself...
>
> I read the law before I opened business in Florida.

Laws change each year. What you read several years ago may not be the same
as today.

  A state
> investigator from the DBPR knows the law much better than you.

Oh really, that must be why I am being paid to give classes to the DBPR
investigators around the state.

> He said I don't need a license.

It is not his decision.

> Also as the Florida DBPR interprets it.  They seem to know the
> law better than you.  Perhaps that's because they enforce the law
> every day.

You would think so.

> > You obviously have read only one part of the Statute
> > and Rules.
>
> Do you think that capitalizing the words, "statute" and "rules"
> makes your post look official?

That is because they are capitalize in all publications when referenced.

  You have your assertions to back
> your claims.

Thank you

>I have the decision of the DBPR to back mine.

For now, until you get cross wise with another licensed contractor who feels
compelled to file another complaint. By that time, you may have found out
that is better to stay within your exemption than wander out into regulated
areas.

> >> If you believe that I am, file another bogus complaint.
> >
> > I didn't file one to begin with. Don't get so flustered.
>
> I didn't say you had.

Check the third line up....

  Your involvement was limited to
> consultation with the other morons who did the deed.

Consultation? I don't know about consultation. Was I in some conversation,
yes. I told you already that I knew about it prior to your investigation. I
don't hide that fact. By the way, there was only one that made a complaint.

> >>> 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.

Oh really, that is why they were looking for your wife's name and
questioning another home in the area owned by someone named Bass and
wondering about Homestead exemptions being filed on both. That didn't come
from anyone in ASA.
>
> 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.

That I was wrong? Wrong about what? I didn't file the complaint. I didn't
even see the complaint. I am not even sure if the complaint was worded
properly so the investigators knew what they were looking for. Care to post
the complaint. Was it that you were speeding in a red car and you showed the
investigator that you only drive a blue car. Doesn't make you **innocent**
of speeding. Who knows what they were sent there to investigate. I know what
the complaintants intent was but not what the complaint actually said.

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

Picky, Picky   (innocent) Better?

> > ...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.

Obviously, because you didn't have to address your actions. Goes back to
your friends considering you extremely lucky.