Re: Free Holiday Season Entertainment

["Highly Impressed" <b@xxxxxx>]

It doesn't get any better than this....!!!!!



"Robert L Bass" <robertbass1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5ZSdnW-T1pZTshbYnZ2dnUVZ_qunnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> If that is the case than you do agree
>> that you are selling and consulting,
>> within the State of Florida...
>
> Not according to the definition which the state legislature wrote into the
> law.
>
>> But, because you don't go to the clients
>> home, your activities of selling and
>> consulting, even though by telephone,
>> are exempt from licensure. Is that
>> correct?
>
> There's no way to answer that question as phrased.  The simple fact is
> that the state of Florida does not have any interest in licensing people
> who only sell alarms by phone, Internet or mail order, as well as systems
> or components sold in a brick and mortar store.  That is clear enough in
> the law.  If they were to change it, they would have to license every
> salesman working at Radio Shack, Home Depot, Lowes and about 20,000
> hardware store employees all over the state.
>
> There's an up side to this from your point of view.  If they were to
> license all of those folks you'd have more comperition, making it harder
> for you to rip your customers off.
>
>> I really hope you honestly anwser at
>> least this one question.
>
> I really hope you become honest someday.
>
>>> You've been told this countless times
>>> so I must assume the question (like
>>> everything else you post) is
>>> disingenuous.
>>
>> You have a propensity to try and BS
>> the people in this group that are not
>> from Florida...
>
> Um, no.  You're confusing me with yourself.  We both know full well that
> I'm in full compliance with Florida.  If I were not, your pal, Mugford and
> his accomplaces would have shut me down years ago.  They lost because my
> business is fully compliant with the law. Now you and Mugford, unwilling
> to admit defeat, keep implying that there's some law being broken here.
> It won't fly though.  We both know you and he together haven't an honest
> bone in your collective, repugnant corpses.
>
>> I don't try to play in your sandbox...
>
> I'm not playing and you would look really stupid in a sandbox.
>
>> you shouldn't try to play in mine. I
>> strongly suggest you take your own
>> advice and read the statute again.
>
> Been there.  Done that.  You were wrong then and you're still wrong now,
> but of course you already know that.  You're not interested in the truth.
> You never were.
>
>> As you said, "It is online for anyone
>> to read". I told you on several occassions
>> that I would not do your homework for
>> you...
>
> Do your own homework, moron.
>
>> But, I guess because it is the holiday
>> season and I am in a good mood, I'll
>> give you a gift. I told you that some
>> of your gray area activity will and have
>> been corrected since your friendly
>> DBPR investigator payed you a visit...
>
> There is no such thing as a gray area under the law.  Activity is legal or
> illegal.  Mine happens to be legal.  I can't speak for what you do to your
> vict... er, customers though.
>
>> The Governor signed the legislation
>> in June and on July 1st, 2006 the law
>> changed. In certain circles it was dubbed
>> the "Bass Bill"...
>
> Oh, bullshit!
>
>> Evidently you haven't read the statute
>> recently. The word "on-site" was dropped
>> from the statute pertaining to sales. If the
>> State has not updated the website as of
>> yet, it doesn't mean the law is not in effect...
>
> Uh-huh, sure.  If there were any truth to that Mugford and his cohorts
> would have been on me like maggots on Olson.
>
>> you will find that your license number
>> needs to be listed on your website...
>
> That only applies to companies whose work is subject to licensing.  Mine
> is not so there's no license and no requirement to post one.  Of course,
> you know that too, but you lie so there's no reason to expect you'd be
> honest now.
>
>> I'll let you explain the meaning of "sales"
>> and "consulting", regardless of the medium,
>> to the next investigator...
>
> Sure thing.  I'll let you explain the meaning of "filing a false
> complaint" to my attorney.  You say you want to fight?  OK, but you might
> want to take note of what happened to a certain jackass from Waco.  He
> found out the hard way that I hit back much harder if sufficiently
> provoked.
>
>> I will guarantee that the next one will be a
>> little more informed about the statute by the
>> new State Attorney, who by the way, is
>> known for seeing things as black and white...
>
> Yes, yes, yes.  And I'll let you deal with my attorney, you useless piece
> of rhinocerous pizzle (apologies to Eddie Murphy:)).
>
>> You need to play nice Robert and stop
>> the insults and I mean across the board...
>
> Or what?  You'll file a complaint.  I can't wait for your reply.  Let's
> see if this is nice enough for your taste.  Drop dead and on the way down
> hit your head.  You're a useless, lying sack of jiminex with less morals
> than a can full of olson.
>
>> Oh, just in case you still don't understand,
>> even though he has gotten into your head,
>> Mugford and the Electrical Contractors Licensing
>> Board has absolutely nothing to do with
>> unlicensed contractor activity, so chasing
>> that vehicle is a waste of your time.
>
> I never said he did.  I stated, quite correctly, that Mugford got a pal of
> his to file a false complaint based in part on direct quotes from Mugford
> himself.  The state inspector came to my place and asked about my
> business.  I showed him what I do and then showed him how to parse
> Mugford's childish online rants from this newsgroup.  He was shocked at
> Mugford's assinine public display of bias.  He also saw that much of the
> wording of the false complaint quoted Mugford and a few of his jackass
> pals from this newsgroup. The inspector told me on the spot that in his
> opinion the com[plaint was baseless and biased.  He also said that he
> would pass the information on to the SA with a recommendation to dismiss.
> That is precisely what the SA did.  There was no objection or dissent from
> anyone in the department -- Mugford made that up.  Like most of what he
> has posted, it was a lie.
>
>> Have a Merry Christmas
>
> You, too.
>
>> I know you're mistaken.
>
> I don't believe you are mistaken.  Apparently, you're a liar.  Stick that
> in your sandbox.
>
>