Re: Old subject new input Re RHC

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 19, 12:30=A0am, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 11:06 pm, 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 =A0your shorts all in a bunch.
>
> As I said, since it came from someone in Canada, I thought you'd be
> interested in seeing it.

RHC: Yeah...well...thanks....I guess.

Look, I don't want to start this argument all over again. The
newsgroup has been quiet for a long time now, with little sniping at
each other. I'd personally like to keep it that way ! So I'll go back
to before this thread and keep quiet about these points. I'ts not
likely that anything said will influence anyone to do other that what
they are doing now, so all it will do is create needless "heat". And
coming from Canada has no bearing on anything vis a vis this issue....

Peace brother !!!