Re: Compass Software

["R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Frank, I've stated my position, and why I'm here, and frankly that's the end
of it. I have no wish to argue semantics with you vis a vis who did what to
whom. I can't control anyone on this newsgroup any more than you or Jim,
although I think your approach to dealing with what you see as RLB's sins
makes far more sense than Jim's. Personally, I can't remember a single
instance when I have either attacked OR defended RLB on anything. However,
if I happen to agree or disagree with him on technical points, I say so, as
does he, if he disagrees with me. You get what you give in life, and that
goes for a virtual newsgroup as well. It's not a personal thing; it's just a
newsgroup.

As for our industry and some of the shady things that go on, I think perhaps
you might have slightly rose coloured glasses on, or things are much better
out West than they are around here. If you guys would spend less time
obsessed with RLB, and focus on some of the real problems we all face in the
industry, things would run smoother (and the posts would be more useful to
readers). And believe me, foul language doesn't bother me in the least, but
there are many readers who do take offence to it. Nor does it add anything
to the newsgroup.

As for where RLB is now, I don't know any more than you do. I won't bother
to send him an e mail because he never answers them. You have better luck
getting hold of him from within the newsgroup than you do by e mail.

RHC


"Frank Olson" <Please-use-the-email-links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:Eyz5f.242640$tl2.62031@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:PcWdnam1UJ0brMjeRVn-rA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Look Frank,
>
> I'm reminded of that scene in "Wallace and Grommit" where someone yells
> "Duck!", and Wallace responds with "Where?" and almost gets flattened.
>
>> I am not defending the guy, nor am I going to attack him for his
>> statements.
>
> No.  But you let him carry on with his unprovoked attacks.  I haven't
> flamed him once in almost a year now.  I've simply been asking for proof
> for his many statements of "supposed fact".
>
>> I simply don't see it as useful for the newsgroup for half of the posts
>> here to be simply "pissing in each others ears".
>
> Interesting.  You say you recognize what Robert does and don't approve,
> but you keep "out of it" and let him run rough-shod through the group.
> Forget ethics.  Forget the FAQ.  Perhaps we should change the name of it
> to Alt.Bass.Burglar.Alarms.Tech .
>
>> But I'm sure he's just as hard headed as the rest of us in this group. I
>> too see the jabs and criticisms of our industry and there are times I
>> wish he'd learn to use a little discretion in his responses.
>
> But you don't *say* anything...
>
>> But then if I was attacked at every turn, I might respond the same way.
>
> Let's wait and see, shall we??  Let's see who "casts the first stone"
> (makes the first derogatory remark) on his return (if he returns, that
> is).
>
>> Sometimes he goes overboard, (even for me), but in a lot of his comments
>> regarding our industry, a lot of the time, he is not too far off the
>> mark....dealers who's only interest is in "flipping paper", dealers who
>> unethically lock customer owned boards, and SOME of the"big box"
>> companies and mass marketers who cheapen the whole market for all of us
>> through atrocious and essentially dishonest dealer programs and shoddy,
>> minimalistic installations. And I could go on and on...
>
> Which you frequently do.  I agree that there are shady dealers out there,
> but they are in fact far fewer than either you or RLB keep going on about.
> I was working for Chubb when ADT introduced the "low down/zero down"
> systems they were responding to a trend in many local markets that was
> putting downward pressure on the actual install.  Chubb was always priced
> "high" and it was tough selling a $4000.00 system in a residential market
> that averaged $1500.00 for the same equipment.  Was Chubb "gouging"??  Are
> they still in business??  How many of the local firms that we were
> competing against are still around??  I know of six (and they all operate
> their own monitoring stations, charge between $70 and $90 per hour and
> markup equipment by at least 50%).  The rest are "history".
>
>
>>
>> He too falls victim to the all too easy tendency to generalize about
>> problems and in the process make them seem more prevalent than they may
>> be (and I am just as guilty of that too although I do try to be
>> especially careful in this regard).
>
> Careful??  Hardly!!  When Robert frequently tries to turn the discussion
> to any of the aforementioned subjects, you're always quick to jump right
> in and defend him.  Even though you know that many of the practices he
> rants against aren't as prevalent as he (and you) make them out to be...
>
>
>>
>> And as for Jim, I don't question his willingness to answer DIY'ers, nor
>> his willingness to respond, although I don't see most of them simply
>> because for the moment, I have him blocked.
>
> Then you've missed all the positives Jim's contributed in an effort to
> "weed out" what you consider "hateful, ignorant crap".  Let me ask you...
> How do you consider some of Robert's responses??  The ones where he
> outright *LIES* about people, or infers by innuendo that they're "on
> drugs", are "pedophiles", and "child beaters"...  When have I ever seen
> you respond by placing him on your "ignore list"??  Do four letter words
> in this group offend you??  I think you're in the wrong industry if they
> do...  Perhaps you should open a bookstore.
>
>> But the bottom line is NOTHING that any of you guys say will change his
>> approach. Make your statement of objection in a factual way and then let
>> it go. Readers can form their own opinion of the worth of his statements
>> or not. Factual criticism will always come across as more convincing than
>> a diatribe of hateful comments.
>
> Agreed.  But how do you deal with an individual that ignores all the
> rules, posts passwords to security manufacturer's sites, sells *dealer*
> software to anyone with a valid credit card??  Who ignores netiquette and
> ethics??  Who "revels" in his ability to create mayhem and then turns
> around and accuses the participants here that respond of being DIY
> unfriendly?
>
>
>> But those same readers can clearly see the total LACK of worth of some of
>> the more hostile statements you guys make in response, which only serves
>> to make you look like "the bad guys". The whole thing comes across
>> sometimes as a bunch of kids in a school yard fighting about trivia and
>> in the process does nothing for our image as professionals.
>
> Which is exactly why I've decided not to respond in this fashion.  I've
> asked for proof of his statements.  Seems to me that's working about as
> well as Jim's efforts...
>
>
>>
>> We can keep this thread going until the cows come home, but I absolutely
>> refuse to engage in the escalating stupidity that goes on here. If you
>> see that as wearing "rose coloured glasses" so be it. I stated my purpose
>> in being part of this newsgroup some years ago, and it hasn't changed and
>> won't change...
>>
>> So press on....
>
> So let's "press on"...  Would you ignore shoddy work from one of your
> employees??  Would you stand by and say nothing if they were engaged in
> the kind of discussions Robert starts in front of your customers??  Have
> you noticed how much more peaceful the group is when he's *not* around??
> Have you noticed how everyone here naturally follows a set of guidelines
> even though a number of them have never even seen the Group's FAQ??  The
> participants here are professionals.  They don't need some guy that runs a
> mail-order store coming in to tell them they're all a bunch of crooks
> because they "overcharge" for services.  Some of us actually run brick and
> mortar security businesses, pay Provincial Sales Tax, Worker's Comp,
> Insurance, Office, actually *stock* inventory, have four (or more)
> vehicles on the road, etc.
>
> I'm of the opinion that something has happened to Robert that he didn't
> forsee (in other words, it's not a vacation or planned absence).  I've
> never wished the man "ill", and any attempt at reasoning with him when we
> were on friendly terms has always resulted in more flames from him.
> That's what I meant by you're wearing "rose coloured specs".  You
> frequently tend to ignore what Robert's posted and focus on the response,
> which I must admit looks like it goes "over-board" *in the moment*, but
> when put into the context of "the big picture", perhaps isn't.  You've
> been here long enough to know.
>