Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru hehehe, here's a different opinion. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=317526#post317526
Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru Bill is behaving himself, at least for now... so no need to bash him just yet Mind you, I've seen other boards ruined by him (CN narrowly rescued)... so I am a tad bit skeptical that he will be able to keep his opinions/posting in check... we'll see!
TaTa. See ya later alligator. See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya. Vaya con dios. Adios. Later. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. Bon voyage. Happy trails. Hasta la vista...baby. Don't go away mad...just go away. And in the voice of the ever sexy AOL man..."GOODBYE!"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru I agree with everything Kit just said. He's behaving himself, but I have seen boards ruined as well. I just hope this time will be different.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru Alright, I wasn't going to jump into this thread at all but I see there seems to be little alternative at this point. So let me state this. I came here with the intent of giving others the greatest amount of help I could based on the experience I have gained here as well as on my own board and yes, others as well. I've come a long, long way since I started getting into this credit thing and now. I've really never invented much new, but rather tended to take the best I could find from everywhere and put it together into a cohesive and working plan that gets the job done up to a certain point and that certain point is very much advanced beyond validation and estoppel. Although they are the basic first steps that is all they are. Basic first steps in the right direction. I soon realized that if one is going to be successful he has to have a plan of action that will take him up to the point of getting sued or starting law suits against others who do illegal acts. Once it gets into a courtroom battle there are basically two areas that must be addressed. The first is how to win when one is about to get sued or has already been sued. I think the best way to deal with that situation is to learn all one can about void judgments and how to file motion to vacate void judgment and win that way. The other is how to file suit on someone who has violated our rights and broken the law. Small claims court may get reasonably good answers but my thinking is that one should not settle for peanuts when all he needs to do is file in US Federal District Court and go for the gold. Since finding competent legal help to do that for us seems to be difficult if not impossible it then becomes necessary to learn how to do it on a pro se basis. Seems to me all of that should be both sensible and doable although not without a reasonable amount of study and work. Nothing comes for free. I didn't come back with the intention of simply trying to sell what I know and I didn't come back with the intention of starting any fights but those attacking me had best be well prepared to get back in more than full measure what they think they are going to hand out. There is absolutely no need for personal slams or attacks. They do nothing but prevent those who need help from getting any. I don't claim to know it all and I learn more and more all the time. If somebody finds me in error then let them point that out sans personal attaacks and slams. I've been wrong lots of times before and I'm going to be wrong a lot more times in the future as I learn and grow. That is just the way life is. All I got to say is that just like everybody else, I try to be a reasonable and thinking human being and I am more than willing to give back what I receive. If that is at least a bit of human decency and respect I will give back in good measure. If what I get is slams and personal attacks I will give that back in good measure as well. And so I rest my case by asking if that is not just about the way you would feel too?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru Some times, on posts such as this, you open it out of a bit of curiousity, then you read the next post to see the first reply, then the next, then the next then the next; not soon enough you're at the end wondering why the phuk you just wasted so much time reading shit. -0m
Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru That is the case sometimes. Sometimes you read the whole thread and then say Hmmm-- I think I will have to do some research on that or even --wow! I just learned something I did not know. I think Bill has the right idea when he says he knows a lot, but is still learning. Thanks for your time Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru (a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded. (b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought. (c) Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action within the jurisdiction conferred by section 1331 of this title is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates. (d) Any civil action brought in a State court against a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title may be removed by the foreign state to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. Upon removal the action shall be tried by the court without jury. Where removal is based upon this subsection, the time limitations of section 1446(b) of this chapter may be enlarged at any time for cause shown. (e) The court to which such civil action is removed is not precluded from hearing and determining any claim in such civil action because the State court from which such civil action is removed did not have jurisdiction over that claim.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru Oh Lord. Here I go. To the original poster: What point are you trying to make, exactly? You're not a good communicator. We'd all like specific examples, real facts if you're going to discredit someone's effort. Where are these things? What? You don't have them? Don't really care to put the time in to make your argument? Good. Well, let me make MY point(s). I don't know about you, and I'm not going to speak for anyone else here, but I really appreciate a forum like this, with all of the good stuff along with the bad stuff. I see Bill post things that I don't quite consider 100% useful. But I'll take it over nothing -- because, well, let's see: * It's free (as in beer) * It's informative (if not 100% applicable) * It provokes thought (thinking is good) * It provides content (boredom escape) and * Some of it is extremely useful (Thanks Bill!) Am I in cahoots with Bill? Nah, don't even know him. But I see his true heart is trying to help folks from what I can tell. Maybe I'm way off here and he trafficks in kitty porn (joke folks) - but I think you're way off. Anyhow - that's imho. Good day!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru NextLevel~~ Maybe I'm way off here and he trafficks in kitty porn (joke folks) - No...but he does TRAFFIC CANCER STICKS.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru Yes, George, I do. But you just keep on calling them cancer sticks while you can because now they have discovered that tobacco can be one of the most effective cancer killers that man has ever known. Just the reverse of what everybody has been spoonfed by Slick Willy and his cohorts. Actually, Slick Willy was against the plan that was first given him by Al Gore and Willies political advisor, Dick somebodyorother. Can't remember his last name now. Slick Willie thought that Gore and the other guy were nuts and he wasn't about to take on the tobacco companies because every politician out there knew it was political suicide to do so. But they convinced him that all he had to do was claim he was "doing it for the kids" and everybody would go for it. He did and they were right. America bought it hook line and sinker. Why? Not only was it "for the kids" but it was huge money. More money than the politicians had ever dreamed of getting their grimy mitts on at one blow than at almost any time in history. Of course, they would use all that money to repay the states for all those 425,000 people that die from cancer each and every year since 1982 when the Center for Disease Control first came up with that junk number. And if anybody thinks it isn't a junk number then please explain to me why it is that exactly 425,000 people have died from cancer every year since 1982 in Mexico, Great Britain, Germany and just about every other country in the world? Always that same magic number no matter what country it is. Well now the tables have turned because through genetic engineering tobacco is being grown right now that has the proven power to be the single most effective treatment for cancer that has ever been developed. Don't tell me you didn't hear it on your nightly news a while back? That's exactly where I heard it. Amazing, but maybe it's true. All I know is what I heard on the news.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru All I know is that smoking (in most cases...CAUSES CANCER)... My uncle died at 42!!! 3 packs per day... My aunt did NOT smoke (EXCEPT FOR SECOND HAND SMOKE)...still GOING STRONG at almost 80...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to the Bill B. Foru That is one of the many mistaken junk anti-smoking statements that people have been spoonfed and believe. Actual medical statistics prove that only about 15% of smokers ever get cancer. Even fewer die of it. What they more often get and die from is emphysema, heart attack and strokes. Those who die of cancer are also likely to have a genetic makeup that is more receptive to cancer than the normal population. If your militant ideas held any water than I would have been dead a long time ago and so would a lot of others. I started smoking unfiltered camels when I was about 7 or 8 years old and Ididn't quit them until I was 42. At 71 I've got better blood pressure and better health than my 20 year old son. I've never been sick a day in my life other than for an occasional cold or flu. Never had any of the childhood diseases. Never had mumps, chicken pox, small pox, measles or any of it. And heaven only knows I have been exposed to plenty of it. When I was a kid I went to a school that had about 50 kids in it at all times and one year each and every kid in the school got the mumps but me. I've been smoking around 3 to 4 packs a day for many years and when I go get an X-ray the doctors come back and ask me if I'm a smoker or not because my X-rays don't show any sign of lung damage. So while I can understand and respect your postion and your desire not to have to smell any of it or get near it, I don't understand your spouting off a bunch of crap about that which you obviously know very little about other than the false propaganda designed to rip the food and clothes off the tables and backs of the kids it was supposed to help. So what does that prove? My foster parents both hated smoking and did all they could to keep me from smoking. They knew it was no good and now so do I. Dad died when he was 74 and mom is just over 100 and still kicking.
