Re: Brinks Home Security Fraud

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 24, 10:09 am, Frank Olson
<use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> tourman wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 3:05 am, "Doug" <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > RHC: Doug, could I ask you please not to repost. I don't want to have
> > to filter other legitimate posters to avoid rants from this disturbed
> > sicko.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> You may not like Jim's posting style.  Heck...  even I think it's "over
> the top" on occasion.  What Jim had to say was equally as "legitimate"
> as you.  It was "on topic" and contained nothing the least bit
> derogatory.  If Doug hadn't reposted it, I certainly would have.  A
> number of us happen to disagree with your business model.  I understand
> it and I respect you for it.  It's not something a company with ten plus
> employees and related overheads can emulate (and still stay in
> business).  It works for you because you've managed to control the size
> of your enterprise and cap your overheads.  Good on you.

RHC: Frank, it has nothing to do with the legitimacy or not of what he
says. Nor does it have anything to do with whether we disagree
philosophically about business - we've long ago chewed that one to
death !  I simply choose not to see direct replies to me from this
individual. I grin and bear it when he posts hate filled responses to
other posters, or simply in most cases, choose not to even read these
indirect posts. I am not suggesting you censor his posts based on
whether or not the content is "on topic" or "derogatory" - simply
don't repost his DIRECT replies to my posts in order to bypass my
filters. That serves no purpose other than to simply bypass my
filters.

If you follow your logic, you are implying you would repost everything
other than the hateful posts ! I would take issue with that myself on
the basis of censorship and freedom of speech!  But these are direct
responses to me - nothing more. I have chosen not to see them. There
is a huge difference there......