Re: 34. Is monitoring required?

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

-pull@shoot wrote:

<SNIP>


>> There are a lot of things in this world who are convenient, a pro
> can't offer what i suggested: self monitoring.


I could offer you a lot of other things that are equally bad or worse
than self monitoring .........But I wouldn't do that. My goal would be
to offer you that which has a proven history of success.

>
> I don't say that monitoring is useless, i just don't thrust it.
> Experience (???): 3 alarms on a monitored system where i was contacted
> because i was on "THE" fix list.

And THAT's a reason to not trust monitoring by a central station? Who's
system was it? Was the system maintained properly? Was it used with
care by the owner? If it were your system and it went off three times,
would you want the people with whom you entrusted response to, to
respond? Even if it ultimately turned out to be false? Do you expect
that no alarm system is ever going to be tripped falsely? After it went
off three times, did you find out why it tripped? Did someone just PUT
you on a list or were you asked to be on it? If the system continued to
false alarm, and wasn't being taken care of ....... did you ask to be
removed from the list?
Also ........With self monitoring, how do you tell the difference from
a real alarm and a false alarm? If it goes off three times and you are
called ....... will you then also give up self monitoring as being
unreliable?

>
> As i mentioned before i still think that self monitoring is feasible
> and reliable.

If you can't see your misconceptions in that statement ....... then you
really do deserve to monitor your own system.

>
> Regards

And good luck .......... too.