Greg has promised to "entertain" the following questions, so long as I posted them in a new thread. Here they are: 1. Is a post containing useful information written in a way calculated to hurt someone's feelings of equivalant value to the forum as a post containing the same information written in a more civil manner? 2. Are you still a mortgage broker? 3. If you're no longer a broker, in what respect you are still in the "banking" business, as you've posted elsewhere?
Mr. Greg Fischer, How's it going? Long time no hear! Gone to any credit conferences lately? Kristy Welsh http://www.creditinfocenter.com
Hi, Kristy. Those were some good questions (actually, pretty funny) you asked the Federal Reserve at that forum. They just released part II of their five-part report on scoring (I'll make links on creditscoring.com). I think you and the others in the Arizona contingent-- with whom I sat with Senator McCain's staff-- had a lot to do with his request for the FTC to look into scoring. Sorry for the unfortunate hostile, squawking circumstances, here. Squawk1200, I'm waiting for your answer to the one, simple question.
Really, Greg? You really want to keep this going? OK, my answer is: "Someone checking on the accuracy of Newsweek's reporting."
Yeah, it could have been us: mostly, I think Richard was the crusader. I heard him on NPR last month!! Is the new stuff posted on the FTC site? (Part II)
Now, you're squawking-- true to form. So, you dropped the thread from your repertoire after you realized how ridiculous you looked. OK. Sorry. You can drop it again. It's OK. Nothing ventured, nothing gained; you're anonymous. You're just here for... I don't know. Got it. I refused to tell the Newsweek correspondent anything about any other vocations I may have had at the time of the interview-- or before-- other than writing a web site. She got it on her own. Ask the writer. Once, the writer of a well-respected web site and journal about privacy wanted to profile the work on my web site about credit scoring. He asked a bunch of questions about my background, and I refused to answer, as always. But isn't that ironic, coming from the author of a site about privacy? Another journalist milked me for information for his story on scoring, and when we came to the end of the conversation, he asked for my background and occupation. I told him it didn't change any of the facts, but he argued, and used the information, but didn't quote me. It was quite pathetic. Subsequently, he wrote another story-- and I told him what I did for a living that time (mostly because he couldn't stand it any more, and I felt like it was torturing him)-- and guess what he printed. That's right: My occupation. Even though he knew my desire in that regard. Even though he didn't tell me he was going to print it. Even though everything I accomplished was through channels other than through my occupation. Even though I spent my own time on the research. Even though I spent my own money to pay for the web space, trips, telephone calls, and paper clips. Even though I approched the issue from the eyes of a consumer and asked the most basic of questions, and the world came running and agreed that somebody should be asking it-- and what was wrong with the damn credit reporting agencies and the law-- everybody still wants to know what I do. That's because people live on voodoo and what they think they can sense about people by listening to how they talk or what they look like or what their friggin' pedigree is. You embody a trash-talking world of boneheads who watch too much court TV, low-rent talk TV, and too much TV, in general. Objectivity is dying and public opinion rules (check the polls). I don't see any lawyers handing in their resumes and SAT scores when they try cases. That's because they're not there to participate in a beauty contest, they're there to discuss the facts. But you sound like the tabloid writer type, not a lawyer, so I shouldn't expect so much. Again, I'm sorry. You have my name and that's more than I have about you. Do you use Squawk because that's the sound of a chicken? What irrelevant detail about me is next: Party affiliation? Religion? Shoe size? Please, begin harrumphing, now, Joe McCarthy..., I mean Joe Anonymous. --------------------------------------------- Kristy: Richard knows this stuff as well as anybody I know. He told me about it, but I slept in that day. It's on the network web site, though, so I was able to hear it. I listen to NPR, and sadly, it sounded just like any other run-of-the-mill story. How mundane the subject is to the public. I think it sees the status quo of the law (that you can't have your score if they don't want you to have it) as just the way it is and accepts it. Now, on to Act II of the three-act play: creditaccuracy.com. It ends in a dramatic climax which sets up the exciting conclusion and resolution in Part III. Otherwise, how are you? I remember my first day in Phoenix-- driving down from Flagstaff about this time of year: 115 degrees when I got to the valley and turned on 55 KOY.
----- after you realized how ridiculous you looked ----- I didn't think he looked so ridiculous (hell I didn't even know what he looks like). Not to mention, the realization of being ridiculous is ludicrous. He has an opinion, it differs from yours (whew revelation#9 Turn me on dead man). Relax, take a deep breath you are both educated and can argue or debate...choose your weapon. -Dave A duel: Shall we say pistols at dawn? We can say it, I don't know what it means, but we can say it.
Breeze, I think I speak for everyone (if not I WILL) when I say there is absolutely nothing wrong with you. You're OK. -Dave
