[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Brinks v Rojas Update Request

Subject: Re: Brinks v Rojas Update Request
From: "Slim" <nosp@xxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:08:35 -0400
Newsgroups: alt.security.alarms
References: <7c012229bc96ce98242f6b74b90eff26@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <46f2d0bb$0$19620$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <46f3223d$0$17111$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8nGIi.7966$A72.2643@trnddc08> <46f3c1bb$0$32531$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

"Roland More" <NoSpamroland@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46f3c1bb$0$32531$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >but the installs are very good
> If all you have to judge from is three doors and a motion then I guess
> everything looks about the same, good or bad. Let me say then that I have
> never seen one that I would call very good, or good or acceptable. Barely
> adequate is about tops for them.

i've seen some diy installs that makes binks look good.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Brinks v Rojas Update Request
  - From: Robert L Bass
- Re: Brinks v Rojas Update Request
  - From: Bob La Londe

References:
- Brinks v Rojas Update Request
  - From: Anonymous
- Re: Brinks v Rojas Update Request
  - From: Just Looking
- Re: Brinks v Rojas Update Request
  - From: Mark Leuck
- Re: Brinks v Rojas Update Request
  - From: Robert L Bass
- Re: Brinks v Rojas Update Request
  - From: Roland More

Prev by Message: Re: Generic Central Station Horror Tales
Next by Message: Re: Ademco wireless system
Previous by thread: Re: Brinks v Rojas Update Request
Next by thread: Re: Brinks v Rojas Update Request
Index(es):
- Message
- Thread

alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home