People: My previous posts were under JDP Pro Se. Unfortunately, someone who posted a thread "Hiding90=JDP Pro Se" was believed by a CN Steve and I no longer can post in that name nor have access to it. It is alleged that an IP address matched one in Los Angeles(?) I can assure all that I am a resident of Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and have no knowledge whatsoever of this "Hiding90" character, much less have I ever used that monicker. It seems my postings here were poorly timed contemporaneously with this poster's "banning", and no matter how much I e-mail the administrator, I can not motivate a response and JDP Pro Se can not be used. I won't be posting anymore in this forum. It would only be a matter of time before this name too was inactivated. I had much to learn here as well as to contribute, but I can not do the impossible and prove a negative. In closing I bid you all good luck in your endeavors. I will remain posting in collectionindustry.com and checking out the "art" thing web site. It's been real, and fun, but it hasn't been real fun. PEACE John PlayerOnEbay@aol.com
In spite of the differences between JDP & I, I'd be the first to proclaim JD's banning as unfair, if in fact he's not Hiding. A closer look by Steve should be in order. If it's shown that JDP is "on the level" I say let's reinstate him. As a moderator I can tell you it's often quite difficult to keep track of everything, and decisions, even though struggled over, can sometimes go astray. Hopefully, JDP will exercise some patience as Steve works this through. He's not here 24 hours a day. No doubt, Steve was only trying to protect the board. Ultimately tho, we need to trust our Mod's judgement. . .
Hey Butch..... Based on his post, I thought JDP just left on his own? Which is too bad, it's always good to have different opinions, imho.
The question becomes where it is best to try to argue our points with persons with opposing views. Here, or in court where you are playing for all the marbles. Out of the arguements is where we become better able to defend our own interpretations of the law. And that is exactly what it is, not everyone will interpret the law the exact same way; especially people who are or were 'the enemy'. Even on threads where there are vast disagreements, those disagreements can lead to a better understanding of the law, and seeing the 'other' side of the issue. A case in point is the famous/infamous "What is Validation?" thread. In that threads volumous posts, there are many disagreements, and each of those disagreements go towards helping to firm up the informed consumers understanding of what may not be validation in the eyes of the law. The one disagreement with the case on validation cited by JDP Pro Se, stating that CA's are not required to keep documentation to substantiate the account information; the law explicitly states that they have to be able to OBTAIN and MAIL the information. Yes, they may not have to have that information stored in their archives, but they have to be able to obtain that information from the alleged original creditor. But my arguement is not with JDP Pro Se, but rather with the court which made the ruling; since they seem to have short shrifted the OBTAIN in the validation clause.
Cinderella, apparently "JDP Pro Se" was banned, "JDPProSe" is leaving voluntarily to prevent being banned again.
