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

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Roland More" <NoSpamroland@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46c68a1f$0$11087$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.

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

1. Anyone can question the mother ships policy

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

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

4.





>
> "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
> >
> >
>
>