Re: Free Holiday Season Entertainment

["Roland Moore" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It looks like they've started to exchange "presents" early this year.

"Highly Impressed" <b@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nGIih.2464$w91.1340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>