Re: UL Required to get License

["Norm Mugford" <1alarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:v9Nlf.9175$cA2.1211@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1133997167.837679.21900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > First, poll the audience and see how many here are UL...
>>
>> I'm not interested in knowing how many other guys here don't care about
>> standards.  The subject at present is your attacks on UL
>
> My son is a fireman, so I have a special interest in compliance issues and
> I
> really don't relish the idea of him risking his life responding to a false
> alarm. Paying UL to be a listed company is not going to prevent someone
> from
> unnecessarily pulling a pull station or a faulty flow switch. Oh by the
> way,
> does the sprinkler system company have to be a UL listed company to work
> on
> a UL certified system, or the electrician that provided the power and
> breaker, or the telco company that installed the phone system that your
> second line is connected to, or the low voltage company that provided the
> wire for your dedicated line, or the phone company that is messing with
> the
> interface. Nope, just us lowly monkeys. There is an opening for you
> Robert!
>
> I am not attacking anyone that hasn't already stepped in it and I am
> relaying nothing more than fact that has been uncovered by the States
> Attorneys office. If you think that this is an attack on UL, by me, than I
> must much more power that anyone realizes. Just this afternoon, I was
> informed that UL has hired a lobbyist in Tallahassee and was on a hand
> shaking mission at the special session. They are asking for support on
> writing an exemption to the laws they are in violation of. That's it guys,
> run with it as long as you can until you get caught, than try to get the
> exemption. Boy, I must be one powerful individual to have forced all of
> that. The problem they face is that what has been violated, has been by
> the
> muni's in the name of and at the direction of UL. Go attack your special
> needs nurse, Bubble Butt, it isn't working here.
>
> - based
>> entirely on the fact that you can't compete for commercial fire alarm
>> jobs with firms that choose to adhere to the standards and to uphold
>> those standards by paying their dues.
>
> Again, if you knew State law and if you knew the issues at hand, in each
> municipality this issue is present, you would realize the comments you are
> making are unfounded. You might as well be talking to a mirror.
>>
>> > ...there is a difference in the commitment to standards...
>>
>> You babble on about a "commitment to standards" yet you refuse to
>> u8phold those very standards.
>
> Which standards Robert? You real don't realize that NFPA code gives you a
> choice, do you? Let me educate you Bubble Butt. NFPA does not specify UL.
> The issue is called "third party vertification". It has nothing to do with
> UL. UL is just one choice, you idiot. How much do you know about this
> subject? NIL!!! It is the same thing as mandating a particular
> distributor.
> What would people say if a city or county said, "to do business in
> Heartland, USA., you **must** buy from ADI. The question would be, Why,
> when
> you can buy the same product from other distributors. Than to make it
> worse,
> the next town wants you to buy from someone else inorder to do business.
> Then the one that tops the cake, one city tells you which branch of ADI
> they
> want you to buy from. In that county, it isn't good enough to be a UL
> listed
> company, you have to be on their prefered list. Who's paying who on that
> one. Talk about a restraint of trade. Substitute UL for where I put ADI
> and
> you will get the picture.That is exactly the fiasco that we are faced with
> on the UL issue. UL has lobbied cities and counties to take the choice,
> provided in NFPA, and mandate them as the sole provider, in some areas.
> They
> have failed to interpret NFPA, who they are in bed with, for some fire
> officials in other areas, letting them make policy, which violates the
> State
> adopted code, because it benefits their bottom line.
>
> > Please stop posting such rubbish.
>
> Just because you cannot separate the difference between a standard and a
> code doesn't mean it is rubbish. One can pin a standard on the wall and
> follow it, the code is adopted and shall be followed as well, and I
> believe
> the fire industry already does that. You can't get a permit or inspection
> without it, so I don't understand your statement about me not up holding
> the
> standards. I personally believe it is a big injustice to sell a commercial
> fire alarm to a DYIer, who doesn't even know a standard or code exists and
> all for the love of money. Shame! Shame! Maybe if you worked with it, you
> would understand the difference. It is funny how you talk out of the other
> side of your bass when the licensing issue is brought to you and your
> activities. You obviously feel you have a choice and if that choice is
> threatened you scream like baby. Just your arguementative personality I
> guess.
>>
>> > ...pay a membership fee to a club, which in one aspect,
>> > has out lived its usefulness...
>>
>> Try to stay on track.  No one is talking about the AAF.  We're
>> discussing the importance of following standards and submitting your
>> work (I guess you call it that) to the authority of the standards
>> writing agency.
>
> That is the problem. If UL gave a rats bass about anyones work, they would
> have a better inspection rate than 3-10% of the systems, installing
> companies and CS they list/certify. Are they serving life safety and the
> health, safety and welfare of the public or are they lining their pockets
> and not providing the services they are selling to the AHJ's. The 3-10% is
> self admitted in a public forum in front of the State Attorney and it is
> not
> my opinion or assumption. Thought I would clarify that before you put your
> spin on it.
>
> Instead of complying you choose to denigrate the
>> agency.
>
> I denigrate anyone that is operating outside the law. What is happening is
> not my opinion, it is fact presented to the State Fire Marshalls office,
> by
> the State Attorney's office. The reason it was taken to them is because
> the
> muni's that are violating the code report to the SFM. The SFM, by the way,
> hasn't adopted UL either. Third party verification when it is called for
> through one of the choices, yes, but not solely UL. Try attending an ECLB
> meeting once in awhile and see what you are missing but than again you
> don't
> give a rats bass, you would rather spew on assumptions.
>
>> > You just like to be argumentative...
>
> Pot, kettle, black! At least I bring things to the group that is food for
> thought, whether people agree with me or not, since this is a national
> movement by UL. What effects us today may effect them tomarrow. I believe
> in
> being proactive. If one is for it, fine. If one is against it, fine. It
> doesn't effect me one way or the other even though you would like people
> to
> believe it does, because, again, you don't anything about me or my
> business(es). What you bring is anything that you think might discredit
> people, old material, insults, BS stories, and a history no one should be
> proud of. So sad you chose this industry to try and make a living in.
>
> >--- whine, whine, whine ---
>
> No thank you, it gives me a headache, much like conversations with you.
>
> > Stop, you're embarrasing yourself.
>
> Yah, your right, I shouldn't be spending this much time with you. People
> might start talking. It is good for kicks and giggles though.
>
>
>
Mr. Worthy wrote to Mr. Bass:

"Try attending an ECLB meeting once in awhile and see what you are missing."

I agree with everything you had to say Mr. Worthy......
BUT, PLEASE.....Don't tell Mr. Bass to go to an ECLB meeting....
He might meet licensed professional alarm company owners.
He would definitely be out of place......

Norm Mugford