Re: Need for pool

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:

> Since when did you develop a conscience?  Regardless, the is nothing
> ethically or morally wrong with providing a device which has the
> capability of warning homeowners that their child has opened the door
> leadinjg to the pool.  On the contrary, refusing to do so because you
> fear for your own financial well-being smacks of greed wrapping itself
> in the cloth of morality.

OTOH, there *is* something both ethically and morally wrong with selling
an alarm/home automation panel that *isn't* UL Listed for fire (which
*you* did for over eight months while Elk's M1Gold was pending).  Since
you boast about selling "complete systems", I'd be willing to bet you
provided smoke alarms (both hard-wired and wireless) to your
unsuspecting vict- errmm  customers.  I note you're also selling
non-cross-listed 2 wire smokes (Napco Firewolf) with DSC and Ademco
panels.   You even list the Napco Firewolf as a "DSC Smoke Detector"
(the furthest thing from the truth I've ever seen) on your kludge site.
  If you're going to question someone's morals and ethics, I'd suggest
you take a good long look in the mirror first.



> I know that there are people who disable them.  However, every person
> who actually uses the things provides a measure of protection that would
> not otherwise exist.  It is far more likely that child will drown
> because someone like you refuses to provide protection than because
> someone else offers a state approved and UL-listed form of protection.

And some poor family will burn to death after having installed a non-UL
listed fire alarm panel (or smoke detectors that aren't cross-listed to
the specific control) that they purchased online from some idiot in
Florida with "25 years in the trade".  You're nothing more than a cheap
"shill", Robert.  A flim-flam man.  Your lack of both knowledge and
integrity coupled to your desire for success *at any cost* makes for a
dangerous combination.