Take Over Practices

Increase your expenses, Bob... you should be tooling around in a that new SSR from Chrysler. Or skip the raise for David, just give him use of the SSR.

Yep, I concur... it was a sexist post, Bob.

I see this, yes, and don't forget to chalk it up to an expense called bad debts :-)

and then what happens? Nothing and lawyer cashes your cheque.... why bother?

How so ? I don't see anything in it relating to gender which might make it "sexist". I figured it would get some people going based on the content, but never based on it being a "sexist" remark.

Maybe I'm too "old school" to understand; maybe you young guys could explain how its sexist....

RHC

Exactly...and there's always the remote chance they will pay up.

| | >

| > Then you have your attorney (acutally I have a form letter) write up a | > letter to the takeover company complaining of tortuious interference of a | > valid on-going contract and you threaten them with a lawsuit. | | and then what happens? | Nothing and lawyer cashes your cheque.... why bother?

The lawyer cashed the check 10 years ago, I use a boilerplate he created for me. In reality it's not worth pursuing, but you can at least make someone uncomfortable for a few seconds.

| | | *** Posted via a free Usenet account from

hahahahahahaha, don't go getting your balls all tied in a knot, Bob.... scan down... you said HIS equipment and Doug caught you fair and sqaure. So bend over, brace yourself against that wall and take your spankling like a man.

It don't look good on their credit report :-)

Yes, I agree, that is fun. That's how the shysters get us... they bait you with machismo (and line their pockets... KILL ALL THE LAWYERS!

Well, okay. Not all of them, I've used 5 lawyers in my lifetime and 4 were great and worth every penny but there was that one scumbag. It's the corporate cocksuckers that piss me off but most are pretty decent. Up here anyways.

spankling is the less sexist form of spanking but it still hurts

Ok, I see. In my day, HIS meant both genders; however, it seems things are interpreted differently these days....you know. like the Royal we....

Damn ! I thought that post would stir up more indignation than that ! I guess they got me figured out by now....

RHC

OK I'll argue with you. What would you like to argue about? Contracts? Lockout codes? Gun-control? The grassy knoll? Loxxon?

R.H.Campbell wrote:

However, the ITI stuff will still allow you to use touch-tone features (arming, disarming, status.....) while the alarm is dialing. Remember, the line seizure is ahead of the user phones.

Being figured out doesn't mean that you're right.

People don't go into business for the benefit of their customers. The first objective is personal financial freedom and/or success.Giving benefits to the customer comes as a necessity to a business, in comparison to compitition, in order to be successful. ie. You give a customer what they want so that they will do business with you.

Giving them what they don't want, to the detriment of the first objective, is stupidity.

OK Tom, I'm back from vacation.

You don't have to stand in for me anymore.

I'll take it from here.

By the way, I'm glad you've taken my advice and don't go on vacations. They're TERRIBLE.... Ghawd awful money sucking drudgery. The constant rocking back and forth on a yacht is simply dreadful.

You know how all the ads show bikini clad women on those tropical beaches? Well let me tell you, it's not true. Why a number of them didn't even have half a bikini on. So it's just a scam by the advertisers.

And .... can you imagine for the next few weeks, me, having to live with a terrible suntan every place but my eyelids? ( Damn binoculars)

So keep resisting the temptation to go on one of those damn things. You'll regret it forever.

You know, at first I thought that you just like a lot of small dealers that can't see business past the end of their nose. Now I know it....

If you don't consider what is best for your customers as your top business priority, then frankly, I don't see any hope for further discussion. Rather than tell you what I REALLY think of your business methodology, lets just drop it, otherwise this is quickly going to degrade into the usual vitriol these discussions end with.....

Frankly, discussing alarm business with you bores me to death.....

RHC

Jim is correct, you cannot consider what is best for your customers when you are out of business because you did not make earning a profit the FIRST priority. You would not be doing this if you couldn't make a living at it

It doesn't mean you are greedy it's just a fact of life, without the ability to earn a living nothing else is possible.

Thats about the size of it.

Doug L

Of course not Mark ! That goes without saying ! However, an overriding preoccupation with making a profit first and foremost can blind you to the somewhat obvious fact that without an equal preoccupation and concern with the customers needs and wants, you cannot have the profit either. Nothing in business should be taken in isolation of other requirements of running the business.

However, a total preoccupation with making profit the first (and sometimes only) driving force is what creates in the market the Alarmforce type ventures, and other mass marketers and their sometimes skimpy and shoddy systems - profit first and customers real needs second !! No business should ever be started without a clear and functional business plan. That followed carefully will ensure the profit end, leaving the principals to concentrate on the serving the customers needs and wishes.

Jim knows damn well what I meant; however, he just likes to poke at my business model and raise a little shit because he disagrees with it.

RHC

Agreed however very few companies do this

concentrate

But that isn't what Jim was saying

I can't speak for that as I have no problems with anyone's business model but it did not appear thats what Jim was saying