Re: Need for pool

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Jun 6, 10:58=EF=BF=BDpm, "Robert L Bass" <RobertLB...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:=


> That is correct. =EF=BF=BDI also don't sell scuba diving equipment so I li=
eft it out
> of the discussion. =EF=BF=BDThe OP asked about pool alarms. =EF=BF=BDHe di=
dn't ask about
>
> I didn't ask for her phone number and I really don't care who sponsored th=
e
> bill. =EF=BF=BDHad I been interested in knowing that I;d have looked it up=
 online just
> like you did.
>
>
> That's your opinion which is certainly worth all I paid for it.
>
>
> Installing pool alarms doesn't make you liable for anything. =EF=BF=BDScre=
wing up
> might make you liable, in which case I suggest you consider another line o=
fr
> work, such as janitorial services.
>
> Yep, I believe they frequently are removed or disabled. =EF=BF=BDNeverthel=
ess, selling
> them or installing them doesn't make you liable. =EF=BF=BDIf you're scared=
 of
> lawsuits, perhaps you should brush up on your installation skills and/or y=
our
> legal knowledge.
>
>
> If there was such a requirement many homeowners would simply disable the u=
nits
> each time you left until the day before your next visit.
>
>
> On that much we agree. =EF=BF=BDI believe they should also be part of a sy=
stem -- not
> the simple, stand-alone devices we see today. =EF=BF=BDHowever, UL in its =
infinite
> wisdom seems to think otherwise.
>
> You know no such thing. =EF=BF=BDAll it takes is the death of a senator's =
child at a
> home with a disabled device.
>
>
> I don't install any more so the comparison doesn't exist. =EF=BF=BDHowever=
, when I was
> installing we carried a $2 million liability package. =EF=BF=BDI have no i=
dea how much
> pool contractors carry though I suppose it's more.
>
>
> Since when did you develop a conscience? =EF=BF=BDRegardless, the is nothi=
ng ethically
> or morally wrong with providing a device which has the capability of warni=
ng
> homeowners that their child has opened the door leadinjg to the pool. =EF=
=BF=BDOn the
> contrary, refusing to do so because you fear for your own financial well-b=
eing
> smacks of greed wrapping itself in the cloth of morality.
>
> I know that there are people who disable them. =EF=BF=BDHowever, every per=
son who
> actually uses the things provides a measure of protection that would not
> otherwise exist. =EF=BF=BDIt is far more likely that child will drown beca=
use someone
> like you refuses to provide protection than because someone else offers a
> state approved and UL-listed form of protection.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
Dead man, you are so full of shit.

You're the one who thinks that there should be a law that every gun
owner should be required to have a trigger lock on their firearm too.

If any kid drowns in a pool, it's the fault of the same person who
doesn't secure their weapons. The adult in charge of the weapon or the
pool or whatever danger a child can be subjected to.

You are such a fucking demented asshole. You're so used to blaming
someone else for the results of YOUR fucking conduct that you can't
even think in terms of people taking responsibility for their own
actions.

Why don't you get a life ...... whooops ...... never mind