Re: Brinks Home Security Fraud

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Jun 22, 2:15=EF=BF=BDpm, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2:19 pm, "Doug" <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "tourman" <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> >news:1826b2c5-a7a7-481f-9bf4-1fe41b15fa8a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > > On Jun 22, 12:29 pm, "Doug" <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> "tourman" <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:a61c78c1-4841-46be-9508-571fcc7dda25@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=
...
>
> > >> > On Jun 22, 7:48 am, "alarman" <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >> tourman wrote:
>
> > >> > You're damn right I didn't charge her ! If you would have, that wo=
uld
> > >> > make you part of the "problem" not part of the "solution"....
>
> > >> Charging a fee for providing a service call doesn't necessarily make=
 one
> > >> part of the problem, the problem was the keypad beeping, the solutio=
n was
> > >> stopping it beeping, the method of payment is another issue
> > >> altogether.You
> > >> elect not to charge a separate fee for a service call, instead charg=
ing
> > >> an
> > >> all inclusive fee and that's fine, it suits your business plan and i=
t
> > >> works
> > >> for you and your customers, but it doesn't mean that those that char=
ge
> > >> for
> > >> individual service calls are wrong.
>
> > > RHC: Quite right ! Nor have I ever said or even implied so ! (at leas=
t
> > > not deliberately....)
>
> > The part that threw me was when you stated
> > =EF=BF=BD**You're damn right I didn't charge her ! If you would have, t=
hat would
> > make you part of the "problem" not part of the "solution"**
> > somehow I misinterpreted that as a somewhat less than positive comment.
>
> > Doug
>
> RHC: Ok, let me try to explain what I meant by that. I see a lot of
> opportunistic marketing in our industry where companies have only one
> goal - to make as much money as they can, to do it as cheaply as they
> can, to take advantage of every chance to make a dollar off a client,
> and not to apply an ounce of humanity to some of the decisions they
> make. I don't for a second doubt it's common in most other industries
> as well. That's the "problem" I was alluding to. The "solution" is to
> make money fairly and honestly, keeping the customer's best interests
> first in mind, and treat every customer in much the same manner as you
> would treat a friend. This means applying some "humanity" (I can't
> think of a better term, so I'll leave that one in place) in some of
> the decisions you make towards customers.
>
> So if someone where to bill this little old lady given the
> circumstances I laid out, it would certainly classify them in my books
> anyway, as part of the "problem" and not the "solution"
>
> I have to learn not to be too oblique on this newsgroup....-

Actually ..... you should try being a little less obtuse.