picantel, surely you can figure out a better way to offer up your obviously valid criticisms of ttowns without resorting to name-calling. Doc
Yeah I love ttowns. Talked to him/her(too lazy to find out which) on the fair credit movement and got lotsa help.
Rosa Parks was just too tired to get up and give up her seat that day. But see what change and progress she sparked? I only takes one person. It cost her much, but the results were more than worth it. I am in no way as monumentally important as she is, but I took action instead of running my mouth. And I did it alone. I deserve respect at the very least. Since I am not going to get it,and I refuse to be disrespected, ignore me. Doc, I never made any comments to or about you. It was not necessary for you to comment on me. I am so glad that I am not some poor soul that would take all of this to heart. There are people in this world that commit suicide after being ridiculed or admonished. Perhaps you 2 could think about that the next time someone displeases you. Have a good week, all. And be safe. Please say a little prayer for all the angels that we sent up on 9/11. I'll post when I get the results of court.
Rosa Parks!!!!!!!!!!!! ttowns, I don't know why you are be so defensive, we've only been asking for clarification of your post - several things seem to contradict each other and you have mostly summarized your perception of the proceedings and what the judge was thinking. We can't follow what your complaints were or processes followed, and for 3 cases at that, that led to the court room. You say you took action instead of running your mouth -- that's just what we are trying to figure out, what action did you take and based on what. The only thing that is obvious is that you ended up in court with CA's that had creditnet threads and behaved as all sorts of colorful adjectives and pronouns. Though it reads like you believe you won those cases you are still outraged and considering extortion and/or blackmail charges. A person's character, history, intent and motivation are commonly called into question in a court room. In the same way that you too had creditnet threads with you to support your position about the CA's history in dealing with consumers. This is what I couldn't figure out, whether the threads were being used as a reflection of your intent and history or whether they were more focused on the process leading to the courtroom. I'm still not following how either are blackmail or extortion. I don't know how asking for clarification, details or links that would explain further or provide the missing details needed to follow equates to a lack of respect and in the asking you take that as a personal challenge. Suicide!!!! Ridiculed and admonished!!!! be serious, why don't you take the questions and requests for clarification as intended, as an opportunity to provide the details leading up to your court cases and the actual proceedings. Sassy
Perhaps it was the tone and timing of the questions. towns was on a high, having successfully come through a stressful event, and then someone comes along and, using pompous language and presumptuous reasoning, starts asking questions in an almost prosecutorial manner: There are better ways to make a request than this, I'm sure you will agree. It would have been better for all if towns had simply ignored such a rudely worded demand, but no one is perfect. Things spun out of control from there, egos got involved, and you now have this mess. One thing that I don't get is there's plenty of blame to go around, but certain members of this board want to lay it all at towns' feet, and based on this thread, I don't see it that way. Was this perhaps a continuation of some previous altercation, or was that post by G.Fisher as out-of-the-blue provocative as it seems to me?
Sassy, I thought that you had gone back under my name and read the posts, so you could follow the situation. I suppose that I was being a bit too open about my thoughts and feelings about all of this. I can't expect anyone to understand what happened. Its one of those cases that no matter how much I explain, since you weren't there you won't ever fully understand. I wanted to let everyone know to what extent the CAs will go, to what depths they will sink. So that you go in fully informed if it were to happen to you. There are people that are indeed afraid of the CAs and believe the lies they tell. That's what they work on, fear and intimidation. We all know that. I expected something, and was not surprised. I'm confident in my cases. As I said, I had done nothing wrong to cause anything that had transpired. All that they could bring into court was the posts. One post out of how many? Nothing else. They are multi-million dollar companies that pay people to do those jobs. I am one person working alone. Yet, I could provide concrete proof to back myself up and all they could do is create bs. I can not say what the judge will rule. As I said, I think that his trust in my word speaks volumes. I could be wrong. But I am not a Stepford wife. I get upset, harried, aggravated and annoyed. Like everyone else. I am not perfect. I swear occasionally, yes(never mind that I replaced a letter or 2). So WHAT? No one here swears. The judge doesn't swear. Uh-huh. Right. It's nice that people jump on me for being forthcoming about my experiences. I am not the one reporting incorrect debts, lowering your credit scores, calling you at work 10 times a day, charging you 24.99% interest on a card that you pay off every month, attempting to collect on a SOL debt or any of the other wonderful things that CAs and OCs do. Save the venom for them. I just read Bunter's post. Thank you. And a belated thank you to Picantel. I have never had words with Fisher before this. If it makes someone happy to blame me for something, let them. It's not skin off of my back. I just settled with the credit card company that I was supposed to see in court for a bit less than I sued them for. I'm happy as a lark.
I agree with you LB59. However, not to long ago you responded to a post of mine with: "His brain rattles like a be be inside a box car" I'm not throwing a punch at you, but you might want to consider your own actions before judging others... ttowns....I'm with ya.
... a if those are the only two possibilities. Extortion! Lies! Invasion of privacy! Shake-down! Lurking judge! Spies! Jail time! The police! Joan Crawford! Blackmail! State attorneys general! A subpeona! Cyberstalking! Cheating! Americans in the pursuit of hapiness! Fraud! Identity theft by one's own mother! Racism! Civil rights! Suicide! Angels! 9/11! Fear and intimidation! Venom! Not my words. It's like beach trash (novels). When I read something so bombastic, I tend to respond accordingly.
ttowns, I did indeed review and read your old posts so that I could put it together and follow your situation. I don't think you were too open in your sharing, I was and am still excited you likely prevailed in the court room, and not just once, 3 times. The CA's are nasty and shameful, more concerned with finding loopholes, double dog daring you, and then lying to cover their butts, than with doing the right thing. I don't have a problem with CA's in general or their business, but it is their business, yes? There are rules, responsibilities, and expectations that govern all of our affairs, one of them is good faith and fair dealing. I don't think it's to much for any of us to ask that we all play by the same reporting rules. I think and I hope that your gut feelings on the judge's ruling will indeed be backed up by a written decision in your favor. It doesn't matter to me ttowns if you pick your nose, chew and spit tobacco, and scratch your butt while calling them as you see them, that includes colorful descriptions and cussing. I just wanted to know, if that was why the CA's had those threads, to try and show what kind of person you were or if they were looking to trip you up on the procedures followed. I'm no stepford wife either, I don't think any of us are, and that's what I like about this place, the diversity and volume of input and opinions make the information all encompasing and always far reaching into areas not previously considered. I wasn't jumping on you, that's why I asked questions and searched for the answers myself. I was truly interested. While I don't deal with any of the 3 CA's you mentioned, they are common to a lot of people here. It is indeed good to know how underhanded they are. I don't know Greg Fisher any better or any less than anyone else who posts here. I'm just sorry you took his words as a challenge and I hope you didn't take mine that way. Words are just words; sometimes in this forum there is a tone that is implied, understated, and obvious. Sometimes though we read things that aren't intended. I don't know if he meant to read challenging to you or not -- he was seeking the details of your situation nonetheless. Those details are what is valuable to us as members that may be or find ourselves in a situation similar to your own. It doesn't take away from your victorious court proceedings. If you didn't owe the money (I believe you said your mom used your information to establish the account), whether you sent validation letters, if they responded, whether you filed additional complaints before filing in court, knowing how they respond, knowing if they have the records or not, or if they bring them to court but won't provide until a judge requires it. I was firstly trying to figure out just what they were using the threads for. The blackmail and extortion is second to that, and I suppose it goes back to what their intent was. Secondly, WHY in the world did each of those companies send 3 representatives respectfully unless they thought they could make a case against you. I was looking for the procedures you followed prior to getting to court, and I believe I found most of those answers. The question then becomes what each of the CA's are not understanding about the laws otherwise I'm thinking they wouldn't have shown up to tell the judge they knew they were obliged to follow the law, whether they understand it or not, but instead decided to blow you off and force you into court. I thought Greg was curious about the same sorts of things though you didn't like the way he asked. Of course you don't have to share if you don't want to, it doesn't change your victories either way. I choose to believe we were asking from the same place of curiousity and interest, not venomous -- I didn't read that anyone was blaming you for anything. That said: Spit, Spit, Congratulations again on your court victories -- SCRATCH -- and thank you for sharing -- burpppppppppppp! Sassy
Sassy, I nominate that post for the Creditnet Hall of Fame!! A Three Belch, Two Handed Scratch salute in your honor!
