censorship on this board

Practice what you preach.

 

LOL! That looks awful familiar doesn't it.....;-)

 

Why is it, everyone of the url's you post just bring up the main page of creditnet?

 

You know I wondered the same thing when many of them did that.... "Dumb troll, learn to link!" (In my best kid voice)

 

I'm here to talk about credit. If you wanna talk about credit, that's it. I am a tough guy, can wisecrack, curse and scream with the best of them.

BUT, I am here to talk about credit, and talk in a sophisticated manner. I am not going to take the majority side. When I hear all of you agree on something, I am going to dig deep to see if there is another side to the story.

For example, you had Butch suggesting that Nelson v. Chase had to do with vicarious liabilty, which it does NOT. You had Marie saying inaccurate stuff about permissible purpose. I am the first one to question her and cite case law and legislative history in doing so. Yet, you guys call me a "troll"..LOL...nothing will earn your respect and I frankly don't give a damn. You are mostly dumb followers and fools, IMO.

So you think that if a CA threatens to sue and then doesn't sue, then they have violated the FDCPA?

 

Because he isn't quite as smart as he thinks he is.

 

I don't think I had Marie or Butch saying anything.

 

LKH-

So what is your response?

So you think that if a CA threatens to sue and then doesn't sue, then they have violated the FDCPA?

This thread is on the first page here entitled "can they sue without the check?"

The permissible purpose thread referred to above is entitled "No permissible purpose letter:"

Both threads on the first page...

 

What is your response?

 

Kid

Is there some purpose to your incessant accerbic attitude? What are you trying to prove? What is the reason that you constantly attack people in your posts? If you are trying to prove how immature you are, then you have proven your point. If you are here to try to destroy this forum, I would be willing to bet that you will fail miserably. You may just want to try a little harder to be a positve force here rather than a dsruptive and negative one.


fla-tan

 

I suggesrt everyone leave mail for the new pbm and ask him to be removed because he is counter productive to the board. looks like another bobby..

 

Kid there has been nothing sophisticated coming out of your mouth. There are ways to respectfully disagree with other posters without causing an uproar.

You're here for credit talk, then stop responding to this thread and post your credit info. In other words practice what you preach.

 

yeah, check where I corrected LKH regarding FDCPA law. the guy has 5000 posts. it is not wonder why he hates me. LOL

also check where I corrected Marie on her impermissible purpose post. oh yeah, that post is a link in the FAQ. she doesn't cite a single case in her analysis, but you guys give it credence anyway. LOL

immature? LOL, I am wayyyyyyyyyy ahead of you guys in understanding credit laws.

oh yeah, check where i corrected butch on his nelson v. chase interpretation. it is no wonder that he hates me too. LOL, I am right!!

the reason u guys and girls don't like me is cuz I correct you when you take these wishful thinker lines of thinking.

 

You are only correct in your little world. Nothing you have posted is correct and you haven't proven anybody wrong, except in your mind. Goodbye.

 

It doesn't...go check your Trans Union violation tthread, i just posted in it. you don't have any violations to speak of..

also check the thread where u claimed that if a CA threatens to sue, then it has violated the FDCPA. you were wrong about that, sorry....

 

I have and I continue to..check Marie's permissible purpose thread that Doc suggests reading in the FAQ. I turned her argument upside down, citing authority. Don't be a sheep [whatever your name is].

 

So, if a ca threatens to sue, has no intention of it and doesnt' follow thru, that is not a violation.

And when a dispute is received by a cra, they don't need to have the dispute started within 5 days fo receiving it?
You are full of it.

 

Censorship + moderator = we'll be free of disruptive posters...

 

here is what u said

and i say that you are wrong..they can have standing to sue and intend to sue, but not actually sue you..and it is not a violation of the FDCPA.

you don't get that everything has a "reaonable" standard. you don't get what the words "in general" mean in the fcra. the 5 day is not strict, the 30 day req. is not strict. what are your damages even if it is a violation? you have NONE, right?