Posted by Tim (CT) on April 21, 2003 at 11:46:36:
I suggest your send me a gracious ‘how’s your day going’ message at least a couple of times a day. That way I know you’re thinking of me.
Lots of Love,
Tim
I just trashed 7 neighborhoods tonight… - Posted by Tim (CT)
Posted by Tim (CT) on April 18, 2003 at 21:44:33:
…by putting out 14 Sleezeball Bandit Signs!!! I hope God will still accept me into heaven…
Sorry, I had to do it.
BTW, I got a phone call on one of my signs 2 hours after I put it up. Someone looking to sell a house. Who would’ve thought that would happen?
and your proud of this? - Posted by caroline
Posted by caroline on April 19, 2003 at 11:19:20:
I just don’t get it. Why did you fell it necessary to post this?
This amazes me… - Posted by Andrew
Posted by Andrew on April 19, 2003 at 11:10:34:
Hi Tim,
Congrats, you’ve managed to get a few of the bandit sign faithful to blow some sunshine up your skirt. It amazes me that property owners would have such a blatant disregard for the property rights of others.
I hope you’re just as pleased when/if your property rights are eventually violated.
-Andrew
me too - Posted by EricNC
Posted by EricNC on April 19, 2003 at 11:03:10:
I put out my first bandit signs last night. I lost (and recovered) a shoe in a foul-smelling ditch when I put one of them up. haha I hope they pay off!
e
Re: Sleaze Ball Signs - Posted by Jack
Posted by Jack on April 19, 2003 at 10:42:18:
At least your honest about it. In the future, after you disfigure neighborhoods with illegal signs, you might think twice before you brage about it on the internet using your company email account.
Bandit Signs Are A Beautiful Thing nt. - Posted by phil fernandez
Posted by phil fernandez on April 19, 2003 at 06:20:12:
nt.
Re: I just trashed 7 neighborhoods tonight… - Posted by melvin(ms)
Posted by melvin(ms) on April 18, 2003 at 22:17:47:
Ya, I thought the same thing, I have been putting out signs for about a month now. I have had 100’s of calls a lot of good leads, but the granddaddy of all just might happen tue at 1:30pm and it might be at least a $20,000.00 payday. hehehehe! 50 more signs coming to a neighborhood near you!
Re: I just trashed 7 neighborhoods tonight… - Posted by Kristy-AZ
Posted by Kristy-AZ on April 18, 2003 at 22:04:12:
How dare you trash neighborhoods and help a homeowner out of trouble…There should be law against you helping people!!
Just kidding, keep up the good work…uh… I mean keep up the good trash! 
Kristy-AZ
Re: and your proud of this? - Posted by Houserookie
Posted by Houserookie on April 19, 2003 at 20:12:38:
In some people’s world the order of importance go like this…
PROFIT
LOGIC
Ethics/Morals
LAW
Some of us go
Ethics/Morals
LAW
PROFIT
LOGIC
Re: and your proud of this? - Posted by EricNC
Posted by EricNC on April 19, 2003 at 11:54:18:
>I just don’t get it. Why did you fell it necessary to post this?
Probably to annoy people like you. Looks like it worked.
e
Who said I put the signs on … - Posted by Tim (CT)
Posted by Tim (CT) on April 21, 2003 at 07:22:02:
… somebody’s residential property?
Alright Jack! - Posted by Curt Dalton
Posted by Curt Dalton on April 19, 2003 at 10:53:16:
Giving Tim the ammo he needs for a lawsuit! Can you say interference w/ contractual relationship? I hope so cuz that’s what Tim’s got on you if you got him in any trouble w/ his employer! Oh and that phony email addy you use is BS if Tim wants to get Terry to track your ISP.
Are you related to that Abalos moron?
And there are still others who are… - Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA)
Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA) on April 19, 2003 at 20:26:14:
Logic
Ethics/Morals
Law
Profit
Logically signs can bring deals, so it logically makes sense to utilize them.
It isn’t unethical to utilize signs for getting business and it isn’t immoral to use signs for advertising.
It may be against the law by a sign ordinance or other local law. However, that means there is a cost to use signs if you should get fined. Logically then, you know what your penalties are for using signs in this fashion.
Can you make a profit using signs with the risks that come with using them? Each investor has to weigh these themselves. Some will take the risk of fine based on the profit behind them that more than covers any fines. Some will not use them because they do not want exposure to the risk involved and the fines that could follow.
We all know signs are an individual thing, and there are countless reasons to use, or not to use, bandit signs in any location. We can debate to the end and some will never change their mind, so it has to be that it exists and it can’t be stopped at this moment. Until then, each investor will make up their own minds to use them, or not.
Re: and your proud of this? - Posted by Caroline
Posted by Caroline on April 19, 2003 at 12:07:26:
I didn’t ask you. But thanks for guessing.
It doesn’t matter which type of property! - Posted by Andrew
Posted by Andrew on April 21, 2003 at 08:24:47:
Hi Tim,
Ummm, nobody said you put the signs on somebody’s residential property. What does “residential” have to do with it?
This is pretty simple stuff, Tim. If you’re NOT putting the signs on your property, then logic would dictate that you’re putting signs on someone elses property (public, private, residential, commercial, whatever…).
Using someone elses property without their permission is a no-no in a civilized world. We should respect each others property rights. Perhaps a quick review of The Golden Rule would be in order for you?
Would you like it if I (or some other putz) used your property without your permission for my personal gain?
If not, then don’t do it to others.
-Andrew
Re: Alright Jack! - Posted by Jack
Posted by Jack on April 19, 2003 at 14:12:25:
I don’t use a phony email address. The rest of your post is equally fanciful
Tim, I am not one to… - Posted by Houserookie
Posted by Houserookie on April 19, 2003 at 21:22:30:
get in the way of the little guys making some money.
There’s no question in mind that bandit signs work.
But replacing other people’s signs with your own is theft. Sort of like you can shoplift all you want just don’t get caught.
But some people dont care about getting caught because they can talk their way out or pay their way out.
The issue stands it’s just not right.
I don’t want to waste time debating why shoplifting is morally defined within the context of high unemployment, high poverty, or psychological addictions. You know what I’m getting at and you’re correct in that it’s the individual that decides what is appropriate and what he can and cannot sleep to at nite.
I remember in the old days when people like America Online, Prodigy, and other online services used to spam people without shame. As they grow, they become lobbyists against spam claiming it destroys bandwidth and costs time. Yet, these companies continue to spam my USPS mailbox with junk that I never requested.
Who’s ethically/morally correct here? Is it only morally correct when it’s legal to do so?
Is it only morally correct when you have the means to get away with things?
I also know many websites…even popular CRE sites…that used to spam the search engines with their meta tags and page codes. As these sites grow they too promote anti spamming and advertisements
claiming rights to private property.
You said it best let’s just agree to disagree. I will continue to report those that spam my neighborhood with bandit signs, call the cops, and report to the necessary authorities. Proponents of bandit signs can continue to do what they do best.
Logically speaking, I think there are better ways to get a high return on time investment than bandit signs like networking with the right kind of people.
Morally speaking, it isn’t wrong to run around naked on public streets. Legally speaking it will land you in jail.
How far can one person go to make a dime?
Cheerz,
I don’t believe it was a guess… It was fact? - Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA)
Posted by Tim Fierro (Tacoma, WA) on April 19, 2003 at 16:10:20:
Actually Caroline, I don’t think Eric guessed. By following the logical flow of the conversation, conclusions can be drawn that might have basis in fact to be true. What we don’t have is the annoyed portion of the message and it’s relevance to signs. It could be construed that the annoyance is to the poster who would respond to the relative post, in which this leads to a fact that the poster has been annoyed. If we take as fact that you were annoyed, and not the original postee (Eric), then it is real easy to follow the theory beyond that of a guess and prove that it must be fact because of the reply being posted.
But, I could be guessing at the above.
Re: It doesn’t matter which type of property! - Posted by Tim (CT)
Posted by Tim (CT) on April 21, 2003 at 08:28:23:
You’re wasting my time. Go away. I think Greenpeace has an opening for you.