Re: DSC 832 on Cable VoIP

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Jan 18, 4:49=EF=BF=BDpm, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 12:35=EF=BF=BDam, Frank Olson

>
> > Bozo Companies aren't limited to the alarm trade either. =EF=BF=BDThe f=
ire
> > protection industry is chalker-block full of "Bozos"...
>
> RHC: Oh great !! ....sounds like regulation and controls haven't added
> much other than regulations and controls-

I'm pretty sure I've said it in ASA before and I've said it often
enough locally that the Fire Marshals sort of don't like to see me at
meetings. It especially applies to those who are in "high" places in
the fire detection realm ( all the way to NFPA) and to a lesser degree
the security industry.

These people are "safety zealots" They're in a position to make,
foster and/or enforce rules that govern the industry, and they are the
ones who benefit most from it by maintaining their jobs. In my opinion
they use the "if it saves the life of ONNNNNNE person, it's worth it"
justification phrase, to  defend and downplay the monitary effect, and
hardship it places on hundreds of thousands of people. No one can
answer their "it's worth it" lament without sounding like an uncaring
lowlife. My answer is .... NO, it's not necessarily "worth it".

When I get into these types of "discussions" I always ask the
defenders of the "system" .... If the safety of people is your main
objective and not the perpetuation of your job, why is it that only a
so called .... "approved' fire system can be installed? How come
"some" detection isn't better than NO detection? How come the Ma and
Pa Deli can't have a fire alarm system that wont set them back
thousands of dollars? .....  So, because of your rules, they can't
have any system at all and if it is installed, not only them but the
installer can be fined and perhaps put out of business. How come you
can't provide any statistics to prove that your outlandish rules
actually DO save lives and property and are not just someones "OH I
got a great idea that outta saves some lives" rule, that you just tack
on to your already rediculous list that only "sounds" like it'll save
a life or two? No testing, No statistics. No followup. No proof. Just
another rule to cost the end user more money and allow you to have
something else to enforce, fine people for not having, and justify the
cost to the taxpayers for your office office and for all the personel
and documentation labor that ensues. Just another rule that ignores
the people that it excludes by promoting all the mythical people  it
will save. With no substantiation, no justification .... it's just a
"good idea" Because ..... "If it can save the life of ONNNNNNE
person..... it's worth it".

Opppps! No answer for that one   ... is there? So then what is it
again that your suppose to be concerned about?  Lets' see .....is it
the continuation of your job or the safety of people?

 Bullshit. It's buracracy and "Good ol boyism"  in it's best form.

Obviously, I no longer install commercial fire systems. No sense
paying another fine for telling the fire marshal to shove his
rediculous rules up his ass.