Re: Old subject new input Re RHC

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Nov 17, 11:06=EF=BF=BDpm, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> RHC: Well...isn't this interesting. For once, I'm not the one bringing
> up this subject again. However, since you brought it up, I will feel
> completely free to comment in ways that I said I wouldn't
> (remember...you brought it up).
>
> What a pile of crap ! This is one sad excuse for a company charging
> clients for unnecessary long term contracts when they are not
> necessary ! Consumer protection laws my ass !! There's no such thing
> governing services in Ontario valued in excess of anything here, and
> it's dishonest to say so as an excuse to extort a long term contract
> out of them. I'm assuming his reference to contracts is in reference
> to a LONG TERM value as opposed to just a month over month term, since
> no one in business would provide monitoring services without a formal
> contractual agreement in some form.

Ok! Ok! don't get  your shorts all in a bunch.

As I said, since it came from someone in Canada, I thought you'd be
interested in seeing it.