Re: Bass Burhglar Alarms

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Wrong.  I simply logged on and posted.  There was neither a waltz nor
> an expectation involved.  In fact, I pretty much expected you to do
> exactly what you did, try to start a fight.  Sure enough...

I've just reviewed my first post in response to yours.  There was no
attempt at "starting a fight".  You have a pretty loose interpretation
of what that all means.  ISTR that when you left, your last post was
along the same line...  Be that as it may, I will "drop it" as everyone
seems to think I should.  I'll be watching though!!!


>
>
>>>Your continual vendetta against me has brought you repeated chastisement from numerous regulars and visitors.
>
>
>>>I'll post about security alarms and politely answer questions.  I suggest you do the same.
>
>
>>Fine.  Let's call this a "contract", shall we??
>
>
> Call it anything you want.

I'd say it's a contract.


>
>
>>>and have everyone here...
>
>
>>>You don't speak for "everyone here".
>
>
>>Where did I say I did??
>
>
> It was implied in your statement.

I "imply" a lot of things don't I??


>
>
>>>I suggest you let it go permanently.  The newsgroup will be better for it.
>
>
>>Done!  I shall adhere to the FAQ.
>
>
> Good.


But you snipped the last part.  Just as long as you're aware that it's
still there *by implication*.


>
>
>>>>As for BBA...  I should tell you to enable security alerts on your web browser (if you're using IE).
>
>
>>>My browsers (IE, Netscape and Firefox) all show my pages without any problems.
>
>
>>>>You'll notice that every page you try to load comes up with a bogus message that you're cruising a "secure site".
>
>
>>>Those messages are generated by your browser.
>
>
>>As well as your customer's browsers...
>
>
> As soon as one of my customers has the same problem you say you have
> I'll deal with it.

I doubt very much that you'll get a chance to.  Most will simply "move
on".  As an online store you have *one chance* to attract their
attention.  Making it difficult for them to browse your site just
frustrate the heck out of 'em and they'll leave.


> I average over 800 unique hosts per day on each of
> my two main websites.  So far you're the only one who says you have a
> problem with security.

That's because I take the time to tell you.  Of the "800 unique hits"
per day that you get, how many actually stay to buy??  4??


>
>
>>if they have the same security settings active.  All I'm saying is that you've got code in your header that IE (at the particular settings I employ) picks up.
>
>
> You are 100% wrong.  There is no security code in the headers at all.

It's probably not in the html.  Look at the css. Or the php.  It's there
somewhere.


>
>
>>It makes your site a "kludge"...
>
>
> Well, let's see.  My websites are among the most popular in the
> security industry.  Google rates my site a 5, the same as those of most
> of the major manufacturers.

Google's "rating" has to do with the number of sites that post your URL
as well as the number of times it appears in your sig line in a
Newsgroup.  It has nothing to do with "popularity".  Most of the
manufacturers sites are linked from many sources (distributors, dealers,
news articles, etc.).  The people at "Searchfit" have your various sites
crossreferenced so often it's no wonder your ranking is "up there", but
then that's what you're paying them the big bucks for.


> I can't keep up with all the sales calls.
> Last time I bothered to look, your website was rated 0 by Google.

My "ranking" with Google isn't a concern.  It means nothing in the grand
scheme of things.  Taking care of your customers, and the complaints on
the BBB site are probably far more important than maintaining your
Google ranking.


>
>
>>If you don't appreciate the "critique", just say so
>
> and I'll keep my mouth shut about that too so you can go on your merry
> way...  Mind you, your customers (those with higher security settings
> in
> their browsers) will too...
>
> Nope.  I don't appreciate your critique.  I'll take the risk that there
> may be some customer out there who can't get past the non-existant
> code.

It's probably not "one".  More like the "779" that leave in frustration.
  You gotta get your priorities straight.