Re: Re: Re: Re: apology THERE IS NO OPINION HERE! IF THE ATTORNEY THINKS HE CAN FILE UNDER THAT SECTION, HE IS WRONG! FACT READ THE SECTION YOURSELF. IF THE SKY IS BLUE, AND SOMEONE SAYS ITS GREEN, CAUSE OF A CERTAIN LINE OF THINKING, THEY ARE STILL WRONG! AND IN THIS CASE, IT IS ALMOST MALPRACTICE! READ FCRA 623 (c). I THINK THAT YOU ARE SO AFRAID OF THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING WRONG THAT IF THE LORD HERSELF/HIMSELF CAME DOWN AND SAID HE WAS THE LORD, YOU WOULD STILL ARGUE! I am curious to know what exactly it would take to even concider the mere possibility I AM RIGHT?? I am SOOOO on the side of the consumer, I would do almost anything, within reason, to get whatever it is to convince you! NAME IT
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apology You still cant find any inaccuries and its just buggin the crap outta you aint it BLUE THERE IS A REASON MY SN IS HIDING I DO NOT WISH TO LET ANYONE KNOW WHERE MY DEGREE IS OR WHAT IT IS IN. AND IF I TOLD YA, IT WOULD TAKE ALL THE FUN OUTTA IT lol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apology I think hiding is right about one thing at least.. what may work for your or your lawyer may not work for everyone else. The law is somewhat subject to intrepretation. Not every judge will rule in the exact same way.. Hitler convinced an entire country he was right. doesnt mean he was however. Jen we cant accuse you of being less sophiticated than anyone else.. however by the same token we cant say hiding is either.. I agree with the person who said we have to look at all the possibilites and then figure it out for ourselves.. My dad would agree with you Jen about the differnt ways .. He once told me if a person only knows one way to get where there going their stuck..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apology Blue likely has decided there is no point in doing so -- flying with ya there, Blue!!!!!!! Your facade fell apart a few hundred threads ago, Hiding. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apology I love this Facade? DO tell what intellectual gem has inspired this from Az ? Anyway, BLUE made a statement of fact that I was inaccurate "a lot". But when asked to "back it up", as I am asked to do when I post something, the answer is that its just not worth it! If any of the married men out here know, this is one of the most childish arguements. When your wife is mad, and you ask why, how many times have they answered "Well, if you dont know already, Im not telling you!" ??? THIS IS THE SAME MENTALITY! PUT UP OR SHUT UP IF YOU ARE GOING TO STATE SOMETHING, BACK IT UP!!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apology See what I mean! I don't respond to anyone barking orders at me and I don't post anything I can't back-up unless it is my humble opinion and when it is I say so. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: apology ok , i agree this site is addicting wow, I guess by hiding90 statements I feel the need to defend myself now, after I was willing to let go, so first just to prove my point I will post a letter from my attorney to show what I am claiming is in fact accurate second I beg to differ that hiding90 whats to agrue with an attorney that is a legal expert in the field of debt collection and was a former judge. 3rd I challenge hiding90 to prove your posting let us all see you post one of your actual victory cases you claim. hiding 90 also stated if they are wrong for someone to post proof I will do this later this evening . even if thats the case, I dont believe hiding90 will admit being wrong and will defend their point to the grave. so sad. In making the next comment its not to put you down or anything but just do me a favor with the respect thing and GET OVER YOURSELF ! no one is perfect and obviously neither are you since you are on here. also fro Lbrown I have never been on this site before so your statement I was on here a few years back ??????? not unless someone else had the same name.
Re: Re: Re: Re: apology also from Lbrown I have never been on this site before so your statement *I was on here a few years back ??????? fun4u2 ==================== *Where did I say this about you?????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
: apology -Umm actually, I have never ever heard of CN until last month. Hiding 90 ================== Not according to when I click on your name at the top of any of your post. You try it-see what you get;let me know. BTW :How did you hear about CN? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------
: apology I just noticed that too... Its like Nov 2001.NOt sure how that happened. And to Fun, I HAVE NO PROB ADMITTING IM WRONG I wouldnt want to argue with an educated attorney
Re: : apology Hell I forget what the discussion is about now. lol Are we still talking about the Validation Vs Dispute thread? One thing to clear up, which at least one poster could/should have done long ago, is the "Least Sophisticated Consumer" standard. This IS in fact the standard applied to FDCPA cases. Merely a statement of fact. If the FDCPA is designed to protect [even] the "Least Sophisticated Consumer", is it not logical to conclude that, by default, this means it covers EVERYONE? So Hiding and Jen are both correct. .
