Re: cleaner wiring solution needed (resend)

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:J_GdndFUnLTM26DfRVn-jg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


> When you unlawfully convert anything which belongs to someone else that is
> a form of taking and the law considers it theft, or larceny.

I can't argue with that.  Unlawful conversion is "larceny".  We're not
talking about that though.  We're talking about the obligations outlined in
a contract for monitoring which the client signs and agrees to.  Even Bob
Campbell (whom you've indicated you truly respect) restricts access to
installer level programming on his monitored accounts.  Are you calling him
a "thief" as well?


>
>> Nor are you depriving them from using it.
>
> When you impede the lawful owner from enjoying unrestricted use of his
> goods that is unlawful conversion -- larceny.

Nope.  It isn't if it's done under a contract both parties (alarm owner and
alarm company) agree to.


>
>> You're merely limiting access to qualified
>> personnel.
>
> Nonsense!  When the contract is over and the client owns the alarm system
> you have no right to limit anything.  You're a thief.  Admit it.

And where did I say this??  I've clearly stated that access to installer
level programming on a *monitored* alarm system (one that is still under
contract) should be restricted to qualified personnel.  I take it that
because "GM" (and practically every other auto manufacturer) has gone to
computerized technolgy to manage a variety of functions that basically
prohibit most "back yard mechanics" (DIYer's in your lexicon)  that own
these vehicles from actually doing any work or adjustments on them, you're
now saying the President of GM is guilty of "larceny"...  tsk!!


>
>>>> "Double billing" a customer's credit card
>>>> (which you have engaged in only recently)
>>>> is a form of "larceny" for instance.
>>>
>>> Nope.  The client hit [Submit] twice.  I didn't double-bill him.  He did
>>> it himself.
>>
>> That's a pretty lame excuse...
>
> Since you not only don't know how to run a website or an alarm company,
> it's unlikely you have a clue how credit card processing companies'
> servers (not even my server, BTW) function.

Heh...  there you go again...  saying something about an individual that
you've never met and don't even know.  As for "running a website", you still
haven't corrected the encoding on your webpages at bassburglaralarms.  The
bogus "you're about to view web pages over a secure connection" message
still comes up.  Before you go telling someone he doesn't "know how to run a
website", perhaps you should take the time to look at your own work first.