Yeeha! - There is a God!

tmitchell

I must say that you had me confused too.

I ended up with the impression that it was actually included in bK.

OH WELL

 

I say this...

If you have the "smarts" to challenge the CRA, then do so. It is the CRA's job to send out that challenge generated by you, and the Creditors job to determine if you're "lying" or not. If the Creditors do their job correctly, chances are nothing will change. That means you got caught "lying". If the Creditors do make the change, then the Creditors were too lazy (or really just don't give a hoot) to care about your account.

Same tactics/challenges are applied by Lawyers, Gov't, IRS, etc....

If you're on your toes....you will not get caught. There are loopholes in EVERYTHING! Some people know more than others. That's why we are all here on this board. To gain knowledge from some of those who know more than others.

Hope I didn't offend anyone.....;o)

 

Hey Tom!

I had no intention to "assign culpability" so to speak. Not to you nor anyone else. All I tried to point out is what others here have very correctly pointed out to me when I have gotten a bit out of line because maybe there were factors I didn't think about or didn't know about or simply failed to consider. As long as they were even half-way nice about it, I deeply appreciated the rebukes I have taken because they taught me something. I might be 71 years old, but that don't mean I can't be wrong or get out of line sometimes.

In Heather's case, she has some special considerations that she MUST take into consideration, and I don't blame her one little bit if she chooses not to discuss them. She is going to make the right decisions based on what is right for her.
And if we don't particularly agree with her, TOO BAD.

Tom, I normally have to agree completely with what you just said. I don't think it's wrong at all. i do it all the time.
But I'm willing to bet that Heather don't think it's right for her, and that's fine too.

And that's about all I'm saying.

What's good, right and proper for one may not be worth a tinkers for somebody else, and we can't always tell till we have walked in their shoes for at least a mile.

So please don't think I was jumping down anybody's throat, because I wasn't trying to do that.

I was just hoping to get a bit more understanding for Heather.

 

Sounds like this thread has come to a happy ending!

 

END
FINAL
STOP

 

GEORGE:

A thought just came to mind.

All we need is BOY GOERGE yet!

LOL.

Have a nice one.

 

Lets see,

Basically, Tom declared BK in 1998 (was this BK 7?) and then was (again) in credit card trouble one year later in 1999. He tried to settle the balance on this card, but - no dice from the company - and he let it get charged off. This month, when he tried to negotiate with the creditor for removal, the rep somehow became confused and wrongly stated that his 1999 CO was included in his 1998 BK. So armed with that incorrect information which he knew to be a mistake , he managed to convince a CRA that the creditor's mistake was the truth. And he thanks God for this.


Heather,

I, for one, agree with everything you've written. Thank you for pointing out the irony. Most of the responses you've gotten are the result of moral relativism. Yet - and here is the sad irony - almost every participant on this board adamantly demands a fixed moral standard of "justice" from creditors, collection agencies, and reporting agencies when they quote the FCBA, FCRA, and the FDCPA, but when it comes to our own behavior, morality somehow takes a backseat. Bleeeaaahhhh...


Tom, if you choose to invoke God in your post title - then it's completely appropriate for other posters to comment that God does not deal in deceit.


Heather's posts should stand.

 

sigh

 

Note to self...never mention God and credit in the same Creditnet post again.

-Dave

 

Yes, with the hope that the CRA would update the listing to report the creditor's mistake (hence improving your credit score/rating). You purposefully communicated incorrect information to the CRA hoping that it would be reported that way to benefit you. C'mon, Tom, you posted an earlier thread (was it last week?) stating what you hoped to happen - and this thread is your follow-up that it actually worked.

Fair enough. I made a bad assumption re the reason for the initial BK and I was wrong. I retract that "(again)" clause in my earlier post.

Yes,, I wouldhave told the creditor of their mistake, if I had the means to pay them back. I believe in paying legitimate debts. But your question isn't really the point of my (or Heather's) post. The real question is "would I have told the CRA what the creditor's records were in hopes that the CRA would update erroneous information?". And the answer to that is "no".

 

Re: Yeeha! - There is a, um, chicken!

ROFLMAO!! Heehee!

 

Well, here's a moral absolute for ya...

Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount
(from the Living Bible)

 

That was Marci. Marie would never say something like that.

breeze

 

Re: Yeeha! - There is a, um, chicken!

Hehehe Watch us this year Nana, We got Jaromir now!!! See you at the cup finals.

-Dave