Re: Do YOU ACTUALLY Own Your Equipment??

["Sammy" <no@xxxxx>]

I have to agree with Jim on this one RHC.  You are getting into the paul and
Duck catagory with your constant harping on contracts.

"R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:WJidnf05QdsbrwzenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Your post is so rambling that I find it hard to respond in any direct way
> to specifics, except to add a few general comments. For some reason, you
> feel obligated to take on the role of "defender of the faith" as far as
> objecting to my position on one sided long term contracts. I sure can't
> see how anything I say casts me in the role of someone who is insulting
> all dealers who do use long term contracts. As I've said ad nauseum (but
> you don't seem to differentiate this issue very well), it's the
> UNNECESSARY use of long term contracts under certain conditions that I
> object to. However, I seriously doubt that anything I say here affects how
> anyone runs their business, and least of all how their potential clients
> react to their sales proposals. I don't flatter myself that much !! But if
> it actually does give some reader cause to think and ask questions of
> their alarmco, so much the better !! And if that is Mikey's version of the
> "white knight on a horse", well ....so be it !!
>
> However, you are dead wrong when you suggest that consumers should just
> lay back and accept industry practices that don't do a damn thing for
> them, just because "that's the way it's always been", or because current
> practices are to the "equity advantage of the industry", or simply "the
> way you feel it should be" regardless!!! And if better informed end user
> shoppers make things a little more difficult for alarmcos by simply asking
> for a better deal more slanted to their best interests, then that's too
> damn bad !! All you or others gotta say is no !! That's called the free
> market chief !! Its exactly the same parallel when conventional alarmcos
> got caught by the sharp marketers and the "free system" concept. We all
> objected at first, and many still do for many valid reasons, but it didn't
> stop the spread of sales of these types. We're seeing the same thing with
> the AlarmForce crap and their "two way voice" !! The point is, the market
> will go where it will go regardless of what you or I say or do !! But for
> you to suggest that the things I say have THAT much affect that they would
> actually cramp someone's style in the sales game is somewhere between
> paranoid and just downright stupid ! It sure as hell isn't realistic in
> the slightest !! I suppose I should be flattered !! But  it always amazes
> me how the people who object the most to what I say are the ones doing it
> in those ways....
>
> To change the subject back to unlocking boards, almost all the locked
> boards that come to me come from other alarmco's, NOT end users. So if
> anyone is shafting anyone, you are right, I really wouldn't know; it would
> be those alarmcos you so like to stand up for that would be screwing
> others !! The very odd end user that sends me a board directly is always
> responding to a situation where he has bought a home where he clearly owns
> the system, but the original alarmco has locked the board and won't give
> him the time of day unless he signs a contract for monitoring ! Last I
> heard that's extortion !! If the original alarmco didn't get paid
> properly, they have no right to take it out on the new owner of the home.
> If they own the equipment, the onus is on them to remove it before the
> house changes ownership, NOT take out their vengence on the new innocent
> owner !
>
> At least while your posts have gone up in length, they are shorter on your
> usual brand of vulgar profanity ! Who knows, you keep it up and you also
> might take away my title of longest poster on the ng.
>
> One thing you can absolutely count on though, I'm not going anywhere, and
> I'll be sure to give you lots of ammunition along the same lines in the
> future for you to rant on about......
>
> RHC...alias..."the white knight".....:)))
>
>
> "Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1133582127.012869.271040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> R.H.Campbell wrote:
>>
>> Ya know, I wasn't even going to respond to this because your replies
>> are so obtuse that I'm wondering if you're intentionally playing
>> stupid.
> ......snip balance for brevity.........
>
>
> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
> http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
>