Hall of Fame suggestion

Hi, Gretchen:

Although the new thread you nominated is certainly scholarly and well-written -- all par for the course for Butch -- its subject interpretation is highly debatable. Moreover, the function of the Hall of Fame isn't solely to highlight well-written threads, rather it's to spotlight "must-read" discussions which shouldn't be missed by any new Creditnet member. So, to illustrate with two other Hall of Fame posts authored by Butch as examples, one provides a start-to-finish analysis of validation (a basic and often necessary credit repair approach) and another educates readers to the incredible pro-and-con impact compound interest has upon a consumer's financial life. Of course just because so many threads aren't accepted for Hall of Fame inclusion (like so many other advanced postings by Marie, Lizardking, and other prolific contributors), that should not disparage their inherent value and quality!

CCN steve

 

Despite what you may think, what was posted IMO is more of a baffle them with b.s. type of post. The statute says what it says despite the mixing, changing of words.

 

My two cents, LOL...

1) Butch is brilliant. (Ok, I realize LKH -- deep in the throes of disagreement with Butch vis-a-vis content -- may not want to hear me say that right now, LOL! Actually, LKH is brilliant too, and therein lies the problem.)

2) Butch is such a thorough thinker that I'll bet he can find the flaws in any statute. (And, lordy, lordy, the FCRA isn't immune, as Butch has shown so eloquently time and again -- the FDCPA too for that matter.)

3) All of that said, I agree with LKH that this particular thread isn't exactly going to make things crystal clear for anybody (Gretchen notwithstanding, of course). My experience with aging tradelines on all three credit bureaus is that the negative tradelines age off 1-3 weeks before the 7 year deadline. In 24 years of adult credit history, I've never had one fall off at 7.5 years, irrespective of how the statute can be interpreted. Now I realize that's just me, and an "N" of 1 isn't exactly predictive, but that's my experience anyway for what it's worth.

`````` *** THE END *** '''''
(I'm taking lessons from Lbrown59.)

Doc

 

Therein is the problem. There is nothing that says a tradeline must remain for the full time limit. Only that what is reported must be accurate. Despite how it is worded, the cra's will usually remove negative items earlier than stated.

 

WOW !!!

I didn't know we were talking about this.

First, thank you so much Doc and Gretchen. I do know that sometimes putting right ahead of political correctness is difficult, but it is what separates the adults from the kids.

And especially you Doc. I know you and LKH have been friends for a long time so your post means that much more to me.

But LKH and Butch used to be friends too, at least so I thought. I do not know why you chose to attack me personally LKH, but I'm sorry you felt the need to do that. For you to make a dramatic return after several months of absence and then personally attack the people who stayed here and stuck it out is a lot to ask people to tolerate. I understand you have all the drama you need on CB. Isn't that enough?

Naturally those who've been around a while don't want to become involved in the disagreement and those who are new don't want to because they feel they might need your help someday, and know they won't get it if they have the audacity to disagree with you. So - no replies. I thank all those who've sent private mail for your support.

I hope from now on you and I can at least tolerate each other WITHOUT the personal stuff. YOU are NOT smarter than I am, so get over it. Conversely I'll readily admit you are a very bright guy too. I do feel a sense of loss of your friendship. But I learned, the hard way, how to get over it real fast. If you want to have problems with me, fine. But it doesn't belong here. As has already been demonstrated by your antagonized private emails to me, you already have my email address.


Steve: I do agree with you that this thread ought not be in the hall of fame, but certainly not because the topic is "debatable". It isn't.

But rather because this issue would almost never affect anyone. It would be applicable only if the CRA needs it because the DF failed to provide correct information, as denoted in the Johnson footnote. This happens RARELY.

Certainly, after all the overwhelming evidence posted, complete with links for easy research, (including a link to Amason) you simply cannot suggest that this issue is debatable. If one insisted that the moon were made of green cheese would consider that a debatable issue? lol

If LKH wants to believe I made it all up by "changing all the words, "all by myself", well that's up to him I guess.

I'm generally a pretty nice guy actually, and would like to resume at least a respectful, albeit occasionally opinionated, relationship with you LKH. I guess you just need to know that besmirching my credibility over here simply won't go unchecked. I've worked entirely too hard here, and have helped a LOT of people, many of whom nobody even knows about. This board and the people on it are important to me.

But anyway thanks guy's for the support. Means a LOT more than you know.

 

Excuse me Butch, but I sent you no antagonistic emails. Would you like to post the emails I sent you. I asked you a simple question in email - what should I be reading, since you said I needed to read up. That statement Butch was a bold faced untruth.

Next, I have not made a dramatic return after months. I've been posting here all along, just not much, so that doesn't go over either.

I will do this much for you Butch, I will apologize for atttacking you publicly. Not that I necessarily have changed my mind, but I probably should have taken up my issues with you privately.

And don't think that you are the only one who has helped people here. Further more, I was here from the inception of this board, so for you minimize my impact and posting here also is not right.

And low and behold, here is Butch's ego again "You are not smarter than me, so get over it" Pure b.s. you didn't know much when you first arrived here and I dare say I TAUGHT YOU.

And once again Butch, people can disagree with me, if they are correct. I have several times in the past made public apologies on this board when I have been wrong. Have you? And, if you doubt that statement, feel free to contact CCN and ask.
You also seem to forget that your actions as a temporary moderator here, was one of the reasons people left this board. So don't even go there.

 

There's no question about it LKH, I've learned a LOT from you. This I freely proclaim.

By saying "Conversly you're a bright guy too", I meant to say that I do not consider myself smarter than you either, so I can't see how that's an ego thing but, well ... ok.

I will always be grateful for all that I've learned from you and others. That's why it hurts to see you and I not getting along now. I don't believe my scores would be what they are without you guy's.


Anyway, let's just move on. Lottsa people to get to 700+.

.

 

`````` *** THE END *** '''''
(I'm taking lessons from Lbrown59.)

Doc

.
Good source


lol

 

Butch,

This is the ONLY feedback forum thread that you and LKH search up in together.

This then would be what you are considering an apology to LKH????

Where ummmmmm might that remotely even be implied?

Of course I have to link this thread:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...rpage=20&highlight=butch and lkh&pagenumber=3

You're not suggesting are you that if I could find anything in this thread that could remotely considered an apology (dated July 20, this thread is) that it somehow makes it ok to do WORSE after considering THIS thread an apology on the above linked thread which is July 30th???????

I'm understanding COMPLETELY now why you believe shall is may and something that is clearly fixed isn't.

Please share your definition of apology.

Ya know Butch, this is beyond rudeness, you're wayyyyyyyyyy beyond the TOS as well, I say.

I can't believe it, I just can't, shut my mouth.

Please answer the direct question, is this thread the thread you consider to be an apology to LKH at all and specifically is this the thread that you are believing covers what you then said on July 30th?

Sassy

 

Thanks, Gretchen!

Sassy