Re: Free estimates?

["alarman" <alarman2000@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7EUih.7320$U12.5136@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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.
>
> Please quote the exact part of the Statute that you are basing your
> opinion
> on, either in the definition and/or the exemption. I would quote the
> statute, but you would just accuse me of editing it.
>
>> > 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.
>
> There is a way, you just don't want to put it where it can be saved.  "Is
> that correct?"  It would be hard to phrase that question any other way.
> Seems to me a simple "yes or no" would be really the only way to answer
> it.
>
> >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.
>
> That is where your head in compared to the "brick and mortar" you refer
> to.
> IT IS NOT THE SALES PART OF YOUR BUSINESS THAT REQUIRES A LICENSE. IT IS
> YOUR "OTHER" ACTIVITIES. JUST LIKE WHEN YOU WERE SELLING MONITORING
> CONTRACTS. Now that I have put it in caps, maybe you will read the statute
> further than just the "over the counter sales" part.
>
>> 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.
>
> Employees don't get licensed. If you understood the Statute, as throughly
> as
> you claim, you would know that. Secondly, many of the big box stores are
> getting licensed. Because they sell equipment? No, because of their other
> activities that does require licensing. Sound familiar? If you checked
> that
> before you posted, you wouldn't look like a fool posting things you only
> assume.
>
>> 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.
>
> Click, file, save.
>
>> > I really hope you honestly anwser at
>> > least this one question.
>>
>> I really hope you become honest someday.
>
> Click, file, save.
>
>> > 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.
>
> Prior to 7/01/06  and a visit from the DBPR  you were operating legally?
> What happened to your monitoring ventures? Gone the minute the
> investigator
> walked out the door with a great sigh of relief. How much of your business
> did you actually share with the investigator or did you spend all your
> time
> trying to side track him with useless NG Kicks and Giggles? Now, it is
> after
> 7/01/06 and it seems you are resting your case on ancient history rather
> than seeing that you may need to readjust. That is OK.  Stay the path.
>
>>If I were not, your
>> pal, Mugford and his accomplaces would have >shut me down years ago.
>
> Your brain is truely petrified.
>
>> They lost because my business is fully compliant > with the law.
>
> Show us the exemption, or at least what you  believe is the exemption. Oh,
> make sure to include those from each pertaining statute and..........never
> mind, only one gift per year.
>
>> 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.
>
> Click, save, file
>
>> > I don't try to play in your sandbox...
>
>> I'm not playing and you would look really stupid in a sandbox.
>
> RBL's attempt at some of his own Kicks and Giggles.
>
>> > 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.
>
> Don't keep up with current changes then. Not my problem.
>
>>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.
>
> So instead of repeatedly telling people that I am wrong and that I am
> untruthful, post something that shows me to be wrong. If you are right, as
> you claim, than that should be easy for you do.
>
>> > 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.
>
> Not worth a reply..
>
>> > 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.
>
> Tell that to the two State Attorneys that couldn't agree on your case,
> because of a difference in interpetation.
>
>>Activity is legal or illegal.
>
> That is the first intelligent thing you've said in this post.
>
>
> >Mine happens to be legal.
>
> The world according to Bass
>
>> I can't speak for
>> what you do to your vict... er, customers though.
>
> Click, Save, File
>
>> > 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!
>
> What? That the governor signed the legislation or that it was dubbed by
> some
> as the "Bass Bill". Don't get your ego bubbling, it wasn't by the
> legislators.
>
>> > 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.
>
> OK
>
> If there were any truth to that...
>
> OK
>
>> > 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.
>
> OK
>
>>Of course, you know that too, but you lie so >there's no reason to expect
> you'd be honest now.
>
> Click, save, file
>
>> > 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.
>
> Have him call me. I'll be sure to run up your bill. Have him send me a
> nasty
> gram. They aren't worth the paper they are written on, unlike the bill he
> will send you. :o]
>
>>You say you want to fight?
>
> Where did I say that?
>
>>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.
>
> Gonna call my boss? Going to try to get me fired? I would like to see what
> you come up with. Then we could get into some real Kicks and Giggles. Are
> you comparing me to a person that may not have the monetary or legal
> resources that I have at my disposal? Especially when it comes to state
> lines. hey hey hey. Don't start what you are not willing to continue with.
> You have made this empty threat before.
>
>> > 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,
>
> Ahhh yes. You are going to come after me with an attorney for the
> educational classes I give to the DBPR investigators concerning our
> industry. Money well spent there oh brilliant one.
>
>>you useless piece of rhinocerous pizzle (apologies >to Eddie Murphy:)).
>
> It is often said that those that resort to derogatory insults in a debate
> are experienceing defeat and that is their last line of defense. Click,
> save, file anyway.
>
>> > 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.
>
> I don't have to keep you waiting, as you do everyone else when asked for a
> response. Timing is everything and everything has its time. I don't file
> complaints. I don't need to. Most all complaints are at my disposal
> however
> and many times I am consulted as to what needs to be submitted in a
> complaint and yes, as you know, that is why my name sometimes pops up in
> these complaints. That is why I know the story about your last ordeal. :o]
> and again for the umpteenth time Mugford did not instigate or have someone
> file a complaint on his behalf. He just got into your head, thats all.
>
>>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.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahaha! You know we come into this world wearing diapers and
> we go out the same way. What are you 12 going on 8 about now. Your a funny
> guy!
>
>> > 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.
>
> Why don't you refresh our memories and post Norm's qoutes.
>
>>  The state inspector came to my place and
>> asked about my business.  I showed him what I do
>
> You didn't show him all of it now did you Robert.
>
>>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.
>
> Which was pulled off this group by the complaintant and entered as
> evidence
> of your record. Don't forget, I know the complaintant and why he filed the
> complaint. Google is a powerful tool and can be used by anyone. The
> complaintant found it all himself and ask me about you long before Mugford
> knew anything about. I was the one that suggested he ask Norm about the
> complaint. Norm directed him to the unlicensed activity area, if he
> decided
> to  file, because the ECLB again has no jurisdiction. Do yourself a favor,
> call and talk to Mark Reddinger at the DBPR. Mark knows all about you and
> your investigation. Whine to him.
>
>> The inspector told me on the spot that in his opinion the complaint was
> baseless and biased.
>
> No he didn't. They are not allowed to voice an opinion in a case that may
> be
> persued. Something like that could blow their case if they decided to
> proceed with it. You know better than that. Comment like that show
> ignorance.
>
>> He also said that he would pass the
>> information on to the SA with a recommendation > to dismiss.
>
> No he didn't. It is not within his authority to make such a
> recommendation.
> He is an investigator. He simply takes info back to the State Attorney. I
> have already told you that one SA wanted to proceed and her boss said it
> wasn't a big enough fish (hmm) to proceed with, because of a difference in
> the interpetation of a part of the statute. Fix the statute and go back
> after it if there is another complaint was the outcome.   July 1st, 2006
> was
> a good start.
>
>
>>There was no objection or dissent
>> from anyone in the department -- Mugford made that up.
>
> And you were there to know that for sure?
>
>> I don't believe you are mistaken.
>>
>
> Thank you!

Bob, do you have a case against the asshole? Then make it to the state and
be done with it. Jesus, this is getting old.
js