Putyourspamhere -- READ...

This one goes out to Putyourspamhere:

There can be locks that are 'high security' without being 'UL-437 approved'...

Why you are unwilling to admit this I don't understand...

For one example Schlage Primus can be ordered either way...

What you have done is attack not my points that I have made... NO... You like attacking me... Well this is the time to either 'put up or shut up' I would like you to go talk to a houseplant then... Because I won't go away... I made a point and you seem to be more interested in attacking me than defending your point of view or industry standards...

You still have not proven that Best I/C are NOT 'high security'... I said that it is relative... You said no it wasn't... Some others here have voiced opinions going both ways... You are not THE VOICE of the entire locksmithing industry...

I think that you are unreasonable because you never ever read or considered what I asked you to do in the other threads... Did you ever define a 'scale' of security ??? NO... Did you ever list something to prove that Best is not 'relatively higher security' than other locks ??? NO... So yes -- under the currently industry definition of 'high security' anything better than the 'bottom tier' of locks would have a high level of security... That is common sense... But rather than prove a point on this you keep harping on this UL standard which is not the only way to determine locks... Perhaps you should consider such UL approved locks as 'HIGHEST SECURITY'...

You have not WON nor LOST this argument... Neither have I... You just don't like that a 'non-registered non-professional' pointed out that your definitions have been built on a shaky foundation... Please don't knock me for doing that... Because then I will have to start knocking on you and I am willing to bet that I am better at certain things than you are...

Evan the maintenance man

Reply to
Loading thread data ...

Is he "unwilling to admit this"? I think that most of us consider "high security" to refer to the characteristics of the lock, not to the certification. Someone earlier mentioned some other certifications in addition to UL.

By the way, is a lock "high security" now if, in the future, it will be submitted to UL and qualify for UL-437?

Cash or charge?

Has anyone else but you made this claim? I've seen many people post that they considered Best I/C to be high quality but not "high security". As more and more people in the industry say that - at some point a reasonable person would conclude that this represents the voice of the industry.

Of course high security is relative - and it generally refers to a minority of locks which are significantly more resistant to penetration than the usual run of home/business locks. I don't think that the older or newer definitions do a very good job of getting across this somewhat technical concept. The newer one at least tries to indicate that there needs to be multiple (at least 2) aspects of resistance. But to some extent the definition fails to mention when it isn't high security. E.g. If I have a padlock with an UL-437 cylinder and a brass shackle - would anyone call it a "high security padlock"? Of course not. (Yes, I know that the definition is for cylinders - but I like the padlock example. :-)

Just because you assigned this task to someone doesn't make them obligated to perform it for you.

Did you ever consider that everyone agrees that Best I/C cylinders are higher security than, e.g. Kwikset cylinders?

That is not common sense. What is common sense is that the better locks have a "higher level". I.e., this is comparitive. However, I don't agree with the definition because I think it somewhat misses the point - although it does hint at it when saying, "a greater degree of resistance to any or all of the following". IMHO it must have better than average in all areas, and significantly better in most.

Perhaps it isn't, though. I think that harping on UL-437 is because it pays attention to multiple aspects of resistance.

Are you ending on this threatening note because you think that it is a good way to have a productive discussion? Another good way to provoke conflict is to "read someone's mind" and tell them what they are thinking and why that are saying something.

Reply to
Henry E Schaffer

OK, we're not gonna convince you and you're not gonna convince us. Time for everyone to stop debating it with you.

I'm gonna force myself to do so. <Plonk/>

Reply to
Joe Kesselman (yclept Keshlam

Hey, if you kick a dead horse enough, it WILL move!

Reply to
Dave Wallen

Horse is dead! Please stop kicking.

Reply to
Bob DeWeese, CML

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.