Re: Brink's money talks.

["Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4715c4de$0$20595$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:47159375$0$16527$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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?
>
> I've often wondered that about you

I seldom drink. Maybe a 6 pack a year.

> > 2) I made you aware of a situation where the company failed to perform
> those
> > services. You insisted that failure never occurred.
>
> I did no such thing, try re-reading my posts

Tuesday, September 04, 2007 5:16 PM you wrote this didn't you?

>You know Roland you spend all that time typing yet say very little

>1. Anyone can question the mother ships policy
 Have you questioned it yet? Or will this same event happen again?

>2. The mother ship doesn't deal with panels that only she/it can program

Now we are down to semantics again. You do deal with panels that only you
can REMOTELY program. Is that true?

>3. The rest of it appears to sound like the mother ship pays everyone off
to shut up, that part tells me you are full of shit.

You don't have enough money to pay off everyone. Still it seems payoff is
the preferred method over fixing (or addressing) the problem.


Tuesday, September 04, 2007 5:40 PM you wrote this didn't you?

Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sNDxi.174$ni6.88@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?


*This isn't true*

Well, now we know you did deny it; and also that it did happen.

> > 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
>
> It would be rather unreasonable to assume I would have known about any
issue
> like that since it involves an entirely different department

Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:08 PM you wrote this didn't you?

I don't know any Trixie/Tracy or Howard
But you apparently do know her and she works in a different department. I
guess either the event is too insignificant to mention to co workers, even
in a different department, or you are. Which is it?

> > 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.
>
> Once more you speak out of ignorance

Seems like I am not alone on that at least.

> > 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.
>
> If it was hush money you wouldn't be talking about it, obviously that's
not
> the case

If it wasn't hush money I wouldn't be carefully saying only what is a matter
of public record.
>
> > 6) I never knew what your position at your place of employment is
> actually.
>
> Gee what a suprise
>
> > I was told by Trixie, someone you alternately claim to not know
>
> Not by that name
>
> > and then
> > claim to know,
>
> Because her real name is Tracy

Yes, the one you claimed you didn't know.

> > that you were a knowledgeable person when needing answers to
> > technical questions involving burglar alarm panels.
>
> True which somehow in your mind means I know about every download ever
done
> by the company
>
> > I never cared to know
> > even that, certainly nothing much beyond that.
>
> That was obvious from the initial message which is why I replied in the
> first place
>
> > 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.
>
> I guess T-K is another person I supposedly should somehow know?

MARSHALL Q. TROXELL  isn't someone you'd be likely to forget if you met him.
http://tksecuritygroup.com
Give him a shout sometime and you'll understand.