Re: Brink's money talks.

["Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I suspected you were a fool. Each new post of yours seems to confirm my
suspicions. Do you have a drinking problem or something as well? It sounds
like you get off work, get a snoot full and then go to the newsgroup to see
what you can stir up. That and the fact that you don't remember much (or
re-read much - if anything) of what you've posted previously.
For the record:
1) The company you claim to work for, or a least claim they pay you, offers
services to end users via a dealer network.
2) I made you aware of a situation where the company failed to perform those
services. You insisted that failure never occurred. From that point it
wasn't unreasonable for me to assume that you either a) were actually aware
and making a conscious attempt to deny the truth or b) thought for some
reason you should know and by not being informed by the company concluded
the event had not taken place c) that you are a pestiferous gadfly
determined to fool folks here into thinking you are higher on the food chain
at your place of employment than you actually are. It seems b & c are likely
the best answers.
3) The failure to perform was acknowledged by the company and it accepted
responsibility.
4) The company stated that the failure to perform the contracted services it
was charging for was due to following a routine policy. That policy,
explained for the umpteenth time, was that whenever a panel is (fill in the
term you like best) where the installer code reset to one the dealer knows,
the account number and central station phone number is removed from the
panel by the company. That is the policy as the company explains it. I would
assume you would know more about this policy than I would beyond that, but
apparently you claim not to now.
5) The company paid for the losses suffered by the end user and paid the
dealer to install new equipment and reprogram the system away from the
company services. The amount paid over the amount of actual loss I referred
to as "hush money". You dispute the semantics of that as being pejorative.
6) I never knew what your position at your place of employment is actually.
I was told by Trixie, someone you alternately claim to not know and then
claim to know, that you were a knowledgeable person when needing answers to
technical questions involving burglar alarm panels. I never cared to know
even that, certainly nothing much beyond that. If you have the idea that the
failing's at the company you work for are only my problem, and that failing
the poor customer counts for nothing but simply poor customer service, then
there aren't enough words to make anyone with an attitude like you care. So
why keep doing what ever it is you do there, when you couldn't seem to care
less about the whole thing? If you know what Trixie claims you know about
burglar alarms, then go to work for a panel manufacturer or rep firm or
something. Call T-K. He is at or near an all time low right now and he is
located very near you. He might be in a unique position to understand the
problems of drinking and acting the fool. You may feel right at home there,
then again maybe not.

"Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47156883$0$25664$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:47155259$0$24348$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > damn near every sentence in this "story" is untrue....
> > I didn't use the word story in the post. And, for the record, no one is
> > saying what I called a story in earlier posts is a story anymore, even
> Mark
> > Leuck. It did happen the way I said it did, although Leuck disputes the
> term
> > "hush money" to describe the payment for the event and seems to think
> there
> > is no reason on earth why he should have known about the event,
>
> I'm still waiting for you to answer that last part and you can dispute the
> term hush money all you want but that doesn't make it true
>
> > other than
> > originally being certain it didn't happen. To me that alone suggests
that
> he
> > felt he should be in a position to know to be able to say it didn't
> happen.
>
> What exactly is my position? You have no idea, instead you seem to think
> everyone should know all about your problems
>
> > But at least he can't say that anymore. He has been mum on why the
policy
> > that caused it in the first place wasn't challenged earlier, especially
by
> > him. In fact he has not acknowledged anything about the status of the
> policy
> > that may well be in force as we speak. How reassuring for customers!
>
> Which policy? You haven't answered that one either, you just like to cry
> like a little boy spouting sour grapes
>
> I now await your 1,000 word rebuttal that says nothing
>
>