Re: the police was dispatched to ... the wrong house

["Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK, let's make sure we're all clear on this.  You
say that Monitronics disabled monitoring on all
of the dealer's accounts and didn't even notify
the dealer or the customers?  Monitronics
continued to charge the dealer for monitoring
the alarms even though they were no longer
being monitored?

And do I also understand clearly that Monitronics
has a policy of locking out not only the end user
but even the installing dealer from programming
the accounts?

Come to think of it, isn't Leuck the one who says
most systems are not locked out like this?  Talk
about dishonesty.  This Leuck guy is worse than
Olson.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>

> Okay. If I am a story teller, I want to tell a story. Suppose there a company that has an employee that has a last name that
> sounds like say LIKE for example. This is not a real company mind you. Suppose that company through its infinite wisdom and at the
> same time infinite departmental compartmentalization has made a blunder that has somehow turned into a policy. Suppose that policy
> is to do something really stupid, but it is a policy. And everyone knows no one can question policy in any big mother ship
> company. Perhaps that policy is related to a certain line of proprietary panels the mother ship company uses. In real life these
> panels don't actually exist, nor does the policy, or the company for that matter. Suppose if you are a dealer of this panel you
> can't program it locally or remotely, only the big mother ship can do that. Well suppose you're sick of that, as well as being
> sick of the big mother ship company and want to be able to program the panels at least locally yourself. Perhaps you want to
> change monitoring facilities away from the big mother ship as well someday, but only someday in the future. So the big mother ship
> calls the panels and puts in a code that allows you to access and program the panels locally. You still can't call the panels up
> since they are locked up for the mother ship only to remotely program. Well that is great, the big mother ship calls up all, yes
> every single one of your panels and puts in a code that allows you, the local dealer that owns the accounts, to program the panels
> locally. What a concept, a dealer that can actually program his own panels. So what is the problem here? The dealer can program
> his own panels and the big mother ship continues to monitor the accounts and bill for it and everyone is happy, right? (At this
> point I like to think that LIKE is reaching for the Rolaids because he just may know of this policy, and if he really doesn't yet
> know the story, he knows a train wreck is very near at hand). The policy? Yes the policy. What might that be? Well when the mother
> ship tells you the code to get into the panels, perhaps the default factory code for example, and even if it keeps billings you
> for monitoring the panels, the policy says to remove the account number and the central station receiver number from each and
> every panel they put a code in that the local dealer can access. Wait a minute, that is all of the accounts, yet the mother ship
> still bills you for monitoring all of the accounts? Oh but they don't tell you any of that, they bill you and say your accounts
> are fine and being monitored like before. Many dealers here wouldn't understand how a panel can be monitored without an account
> number or a central station receiver number programmed in the panel. But they like don't understand LIKE. If the dealer doesn't
> find all this out on his own, the mother ship waits until say someone gets broken into, perhaps suffers a loss, and then the
> mother ship pays restitution to the end user and hush money to the dealer. Perhaps that is policy too? Of course LIKE can say it
> never happened. But as they say now you know the rest of the story, that never happened. Some big companies pay money to folks to
> make sure stories like this one that never happened never get told to anyone. I wonder if like LIKE anyone can explain that
> policy? I guess it's something like policy stinks sometimes, and stinks a lot coming out of a big inept lying corporate ass. It
> sure is funny how there are some corporate checks I have had my hands on recently, with names that sound an awful lot like names
> in a police report I have had my hands on recently as well. Maybe I should post pictures of them all together somewhere the next
> time I get accused of being a story teller. Maybe then someone could connect the dots. Just maybe.
>
> "Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:46c6435e$0$11001$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:46c5e5f6$0$18909$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Every company can screw up. Bigger companies tend to threaten and bluster
>>> their way through problems, especially when they're in the wrong, mostly
>>> because they can. That said, I don't have 25K in legal fees I want to
>> throw
>>> down a rat hole just to spar and prove a point that is already proven,
>>> (because the check was in the mail so to speak).  What little cryptic
>>> information I gave Leuck is more than enough for an insider to find out
>> what
>>> went down at Monitronics, even from a former insider. If he bothers to
>> take
>>> a sniff, I doubt he'll make any more noise about it, especially here on
>> this
>>> NG, it really stinks. If he finds out through official channels, I am sure
>>> he'll be told to officially shut the hell up about it.
>>
>> Monitronics has never told me to shut up about things posted here and never
>> will, I seriously doubt anyone there other than me even knows this newsgroup
>> exists. If you want to put up this bogus canard about 25k in legal fees for
>> a lawsuit that isn't going to happen thats fine but so far you haven't given
>> any information I remotely understand cryptic or not which is leading me to
>> believe you are full of shit
>>
>> Either put up or shut up, I have a feeling I know which you'll choose
>>
>>
>
>