[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: UL Required to get License

Subject: Re: UL Required to get License
From: "Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:49:45 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.security.alarms
References: <ay3lf.52865$s92.24258@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1133835319.803272.126250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <wcglf.45070$i7.26103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1133898322.200818.271990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I for one am glad to see Florida is finally waking up. UL has it's place,
but they seem to forget they are not all knowing...and they are not exempt
from anything, especially licensing.

I got out of the fire alarm business 11 years ago. Boy did I see all this
crap coming... :)

Jim Rojas


<mbbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133898322.200818.271990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Gotcha.  It's common to see licensing required of persons testing but
> not for those inspecting.  Apparently Florida requires licensing for
> either.
>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: UL Required to get License
  - From: Bob Worthy

References:
- UL Required to get License
  - From: Bob Worthy
- Re: UL Required to get License
  - From: mbbaker@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: UL Required to get License
  - From: Bob Worthy
- Re: UL Required to get License
  - From: mbbaker@xxxxxxxxx

Prev by Message: Re: Ademco Panel
Next by Message: Class Action
Previous by thread: Re: UL Required to get License
Next by thread: Re: UL Required to get License
Index(es):
- Message
- Thread

alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home