I'm not seeing how asking for inaccuries to be pointed out and then getting them is criticism of Flying at all. How do I defend the FDCPA, state laws, unfair and deceptive business practices and why do I have to? Are you saying they are inaccurate references? Sassy
An excellent try indeed. I consider ALL quotes from your critical posts to be relevant, not just the ones you want quoted for your own reasons.
See, this is just what I was referring to, you can't back up what you said either -- you were spewing at the keyboard. There is NOTHING for you to quote, it DIDN'T happen. Sassy
THAT is the problem, legitimizing the actions of CA's whose intent is to side-step the FDCPA and for which consumers have recourse.
Yeah yeah, I know it happens all the time, and this is why, THEY think it is ok and that there is no recourse, just like you do!!!!!!
You are saying it is ok and not a violation or a series of violations all while NEVER mentioning what IS required of collectors, and that is bull!
Sassy, I'm not going to quote 10 things at once just to feel in control or compete with you. I quoted 3 sentences in which you attempted to discredit Flyingifr's post. Just to be fair, I should point out that you graciously concede (or disingenuously claim?) that "I don't consider you an apologist..." So I was wrong about that particular word, which was apparently introduced by Flyingifr. However, you do say that Flyingifr is "legitimizing" CA abuses, that he/she thinks they are OK and says they are OK. That comes very close to the definition of an apologist. In any case, those charges are false.
I don't consider you an apologist, this isn't however how legitimate collection agencies operate or should operate and your post doesn't indicate that -- it leads you to believe that it is ok and standard operating procedure as well as acceptable business practices. Sassy
Sassy, I believe that the quotation above does indicate some idealization of "legitimate" CA's. You claim elsewhere that you're not sure if they even exist, yet in this instance you imagine them into existence simply to discredit Flyingifr's description of CA's in general.
I follow that board, if ever there was a LEGIT collection, surely they post there. You must have quoted a troll in that case, because most there don't believe it is a stall attempt at all. They provide the validation as required and move on. Sassy, This is the quote where the "stall attempt" issue further proves your idealization of "legit" CA's. The phrase "questioning their integrity" was mine, but you do get indignant at the idea that "legit" CA's would consider validation a stall attempt. In order to defend the CA's, you have to go to the unbelievable extreme of blaming a troll for introducing the idea that validation is a stall attempt. Now I know that your defense of this quote will consist of quoting from my post, trying to divert attention from the very quotes you claimed you wanted to see. But the quotes are there. Your "show me right now" technique is nothing but bluster, and only works for a short time. After a while, your words catch up with you. You say anything and everything imaginable just to have a quick reply. In the process, you say some unbelievable things. It's almost unfair to take advantage of them, because you do show admirable initiative and persistence, and bring up interesting ideas. I quote from your torrent of words only what is necessary to defend a great, informative, and well-intentioned post against senseless criticism.
READ this part again, RichGuy, and NEXT time do your own damn homework, I'll not do it for you. WHY bother, it MUST have been a rhetorical question, eh? The SENSELESS part was me responding at all, thinking anyone gave a flying one whether the information was accurate or inaccurate. WHY did he ask, if he didn't want to know? WHY do you ignore it? You can go on believing anything you read online or on a t-shirt, RichGuy, as the case may be. I'm not foolish enough to accept a t-shirt as truth while discounting the FDCPA, state laws, unfair and deceptive business practices laws -- all factual, all confirmable, and ALL listed herein and ALL because I was senseless enough to respond in the first place AND I already said I WON'T bother wasting my time doing the same again. All because someone's ego is more important somehow than the information. Sassy
Few days ago I asked some questions in another post (What's the worst that can happen?) and Flying ponted me to his "Collection" series. While I didn't get the answers I needed, I witnessed an argument about what I said, what you said, which really makes these threads "useless". In general, Sassy is absolutely right that some things are just misleadings ... For example, Flying said "stay on the phone not more than 3 minutes", but didn't say that I have the right to not stay on the phone at all by sending them a limited C&D letter (FDCPA § 805(c)). Reading the title of one of his threads "Understand the Collection Agency" I agree with Flying, that it's not intended to go deep into FDCPA, but just to give us the collector's thinking and logic. On the other hand, talking about "Understand the Collection Process", the word "process" leads me to think that I'm going to see a list of things a CA would usually do to collect a debt. I didn't see this. The processs doesn't end with the phone calls. People who have never dealt with a collection agency need to know what the law allows CAs to do and how they can defend themselves against the illegal CA's actions. I believe this is what Sassy had in mind. I am relatively new to this board, but I realized one thing in the beginning - there are two kinds of people here - law educated and law uneducated. You never know who is going to read your post, so you better quote the law which backs your words up. If you can't find the quote, or if you don't know it - better don't say anything. JMHO
I'm not new here, and don't always agree with Flyingifr. I'm wondering why you would want to revive a dead thread and old arguement. Are you trying to make a name for yourself? The best way to get people to pay attention to what you have to say is by providing good advice, not trying to make yourself look good by trashing others. Gib
Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process The first sentence of my post is the answer to your wondering. Does that sound like a "dead thread"? Originally posted by Flyingifr, 11.09.2003 @ 11:59 "[color=0066FF]Do a search for my famous "Understanding" threads - "Understanding the Collection Process", "Understanding the Collection Agency" (2 parts) and "Making Yourself Judgement Proof".[/color]" Ekskuse me? How did you end up with this brilliant idea? Hmm, you take sharing my opinion and my way of thinking as "trashing" someone? Did I somehow insult Flying, or did I say something bad about him? All I said was, when you give an advice better not say anyting, if you can't back your words up. As for the "good advice", read my posts, then we can talk ...
Re: Re: Understand the Collection Process I have read your posts, as I said, some people are more interested in being guru wannabes than helping people. My posts spoke for themselves and this is my last reply. Feel free to go about trashing other posters now. Gib
