[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Video alarm verification

Subject: Re: Video alarm verification
From: "Doug L" <vssdoug@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:40:08 -0700
Newsgroups: alt.security.alarms
References: <dfg8b1$bji$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><8sRSe.48$BS5.2352@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1125901636.886557.281870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <xtSSe.213$mj1.34@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5bZSe.6$Ur6.593@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <VpsTe.405$Xq6.354@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <qnATe.5158$Tn6.3069@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

In the eyes of local politicians it would probably be seen as missing an
opportunity to fleece the taxpayer and as such would be considered
unforgiveable.

Doug L

--

"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qnATe.5158$Tn6.3069@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> If only monitored systems were required to be registered, would
> that be considered discriminatory or selective?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Video alarm verification
  - From: Bob Worthy

References:
- Video alarm verification
  - From: Yongil
- Re: Video alarm verification
  - From: Crash Gordon
- Re: Video alarm verification
  - From: cctvbahamas
- Re: Video alarm verification
  - From: Stanley Barthfarkle
- Re: Video alarm verification
  - From: Crash Gordon
- Re: Video alarm verification
  - From: Stanley Barthfarkle
- Re: Video alarm verification
  - From: Bob Worthy

Prev by Message: Re: Insurance question for small business owners
Next by Message: Re: "Blanks" kill actors
Previous by thread: Re: Video alarm verification
Next by thread: Re: Video alarm verification
Index(es):
- Message
- Thread

alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home