Re: Napco MA3000 - Dialer Test on both Lines?

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:

> These were systems which I installed so there was no assumption involved.  I
> didn't suggest that this is a universal fix, only a method I've used several
> times.

It's a good thing you're no longer installing for a living (or running
an alarm installation company).  Sooner or later the customers whose
systems you've compromised using your "method" will finally discover
what an imbecile you really are.  I just hope that no one gets hurt in
the meantime.  It would be a real shame to have *that* on your conscience.


>
>
>>Seeing as you ar not qualified to actuyally do
>>this...
>
>
> "Seeing as" I installed security systems for over 20 years and held a CT
> contractor's license I guess I was qualified at the time.  I no longer
> install for a living but I can certainly instruct DIYers.

And how many systems did you install *before* you got your license??
You frequently tell us that you opened your business in 1979, yet
weren't licensed until 1983, and you couldn't pull permits until 1989
(when you finally got your contractor's license).  As for "instructing
DIYers"...  If this thread is an example of the kinds of things you
teach, I'd make darn sure you have a good insurance policy.


> I find it interesting that you consider a discussion between myself and
> professional installer considering ways to solve a problem an attempt to
> sell anything at all.

Your methods are shoddy, against code, and dangerous.  I wouldn't
consider anything you've said in this thread as even remotely resembling
a valid solution to Allan's problem.



> For the sake of clarity (something you like to avoid) these were not
> installed by DIYers.  They were professionally installed commercial fire
> alarm systems which were inspected and approved by the AHJ -- as required by
> code.

Sure they are, Bass.  Why not post the "approval".  You did get it in
writing didn't you??



> Perhaps if you tried to follow the thread instead of jumping in without
> understanding you'd be able to contribute something of value to the thread.
>


Heh...  What did you "contribute" to the thread again??