Re: Florida Statute According to RLB

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I brive a dus wrote:

> According to the State of CT Department of Consumer Protection
> Occupational Licensing Division his license expired. It was not
> revoked. Now if someone has more accurate information than what the
> issuing body offers please do tell. I love fiction.

What I meant by my response was that he didn't lie on his app.  You say
he did.


> You might want to take a peek at his Google Adwords campaign. He's in
> the top 5 of most keywords which has to be an average per click upwards
> of $1.50. Some he's bidding the minimum and others he's outbidding
> everyone other than ADT and Brinks.
> I'd say he's making a buck. I agree his site needs some help but who am
> I to speak? My website looks like a Myspace blog (the new one launches
> this week).

Who am I to say as well?  But if he's "making a buck", then why not
spend it where it really counts?  He's obviously "obsessed" with
"positioning" but I seriously doubt this Newsgroup represents even a
small "fraction" of a percentage point in "new business" for him.  The
only reason he's here is to rattle a few cages.  Even the guys in CHA
have never included his site in their many referrals.  It's been obvious
to me that he's nothing more than a "blowhard", installer "wannabe" with
a lot of time on his hands and no life.  I object to his personal
attacks and will continue to ask for proof of what he says about me (or
anyone else).




> Nah in retrospect it was quite comical. I didn't lose a dime and I
> wouldn't bet on my posts costing him money either.

I don't find "libel" or besmirching someone's character the least bit
"comical".


>
>
> How many customers would have done business with any number of us had
> they seen our newsgroup conduct? He would be affected more than us by
> newsgroup behavior. The difference being he advertises here and we
> don't.

Heh...  "advertises"...  right...

>
> Seriously Frank why should he answer you? You two are fighting all the
> time. He's going to provide you with more ammo?

Nope.  I'm not askin' for him to provide anything on himself anymore.
That's a fairly useless venture.  Besides, I've already concluded
everything I need to know about his "experience" (as have a number of
others).


> This newsgroup isn't
> governed by the Marquess of Queensbury rules so your asking over and
> over and over and over and over and over (get the point?) and over and
> over and over (has it sunk in yet?) and over and over and over and over
> (annoying isn't it?) and over and over and over and over (my constantly
> posting and over isn't doing this message any justice is it?) and over
> again even knowing he won't answer is silly.

I figure my just asking (and his non-response) is enough for people to
be able to flag his "statements" as completely false and misleading.


> Fly down to Florida, ring his doorbell, and the two of you kick each
> other's ass already.

Not interested.  If I ever fly down to Florida it'll be to visit "the
Cape", and Disney World.  I'm not interested in seeing some pink "cue" ball.


> I'll give him this in that he doesn't hide his name, address, phone
> number, business info, or even supplier info. All of his information is
> easily accessed which gives anyone who fights with him plenty of
> avenues to attack him. He's not hard to find (wait, I'll beat you to it
> - unless it's a customer sending him an email - ok? better now? good
> now let's move on).
>
> You OTOH have kept your information private even though you expect
> Robert to divulge more of his.

Considering what he's doing here and the supposed "business" he derives
from it, it's only fair for him to "come clean".  It's what my customers
would expect from me.  Verifiable proof of my knowledge and expertise.
It's no different than giving someone references.  You are right,
though...  It is gettin' a little "lame".  Sort of like beating a dead
fish with a stick.


> So forever and a day we see Robert post info about you selling parts at
> a counter and you always refuting that info. Why won't you post where
> you work? Are you worried he may do to you what you have done to him?
> If that is the reason then why do you insist on continuing to poke at
> him in real life?

I don't sell anything here and if I did, I certainly would post that
info.  I actually derive some amusement from the whole "Daffy Holmes"
efforts he's made to try and locate me.


> He's not going to leave. He's not going out of business. He can duck
> the laws by moving his virtual business from State to State or to
> another country. He's not going to change his ways. And he's certainly
> not going to answer your questions.

Check.


> It's like I told Don, you're boring the shit out of me.

Yeah.  I've gotta get more witty reposts goin'.  You're hoggin' all the
limelight at the moment.


> Either find something new to poke at him about or stop. It's old.
> The flames are fucking cheesy. Between him and the 737 rolling, ladder
> shock, plastic box, counter clerking, and you with the BBB, where do I
> work?, Elk1, prove it nonsense this place is like Groundhog's Day but
> with retards inhabiting the city.
>
> He's still fair game on the years in business because that changes from
> day to day, his posting passwords, and some questionable programming
> replies are good fodder, along with posts wishing physical harm but the
> other stuff on him needs to be buried in a Time capsule.

Check.


>
> IMHO the last time I saw 2 guys so preoccupied with each other was on
> Brokeback Mountain.

So with all of us involved it'd be "Brokeback Goofy".


>
> Neither one of you will earn anything by harming each other and you
> could certainly allow yourselves more time to spend with loved ones or
> making a buck if you'd stop wasting time repeating the same shit every
> day.

I've no interest in "harming" Bass, his business, or his family.



> Should I post the Ghost of Google's Past and really make you sick?

Gee, would you?  NOT!!!



> Best wishes to you and the family Frank. Enjoy your first Christmas as
> a grampa.

Now that's something you'll get no argument on!  :-)