Has anyone ever experimented with Experian bumpage? TU and EQ bumpage works so well, I wonder if anyone has tried to crack EX bumpage. On a related note, does anyone have any theories why TU and EQ bumpage occurs at all? Could it be a glitch in some database program they are using? Is it a manual process? Does anyone have any clues? Hawg Hanner
Hawg, There is no Experian bumpage. Also be careful what you post in here. bureaus read this board to and when we say stuff like glitches, it doesn't look good to them. In other words, somethings we just leave alone if they are successful. Just my 2 cents. There was an oppty for us to dispute inquires on Exp. a few months back that was successful but that has expired now. It may be back in a few months...who knows.
Hawg, aren't you the one that not so long go was berating people for trying to get rid of legitmate inqs? And now you are trying to figure out how to break the code? Hah, gotta love it!!!!! I mean seriously, that was you wasn't it? I think it was in that thread about the lawyer and 1900 dollars or something? If it wasn't you, I apolagize.
funny, i've been thinking the same thing everytime the honorable mr. hawg posts about getting bumpage on this report or that report. hmm, there's that "ethics" thing again. . . interesting how they apply to one "truth" and not another.
I've never "berated" someone for getting rid of inquiries. In fact, I have never "berated" anyone at all. I did, however, question someone who was trying to avoid paying their financial obligations. There is a huge difference. Hawg Hanner
blah, blah, blah, of course you haven't. you would, of course, be indicted yourself. i just don't understand your "ethical/moral" arguments for the difference between paying a CA who has bought a debt for pennies on the dollar, because it somehow hurts the OC (according to you) and changing the "factual" basis of your report. I really don't care either way, i just find your "morality" a little bit on the thin side. But then again, that probably makes you JUST like everyone else. Just remember your "discrepancies" the next time you decide to "berate", "accuse", "argue" whatever. . . that someone who doesn't want to pay a debt they don't believe is accurate is somehow "immoral"
I have no contractual obligations to Trans Union or Equifax regarding inquiries. That is an invention of their own. If there is a method (aside from hacking into a computer system and/or doing something illegal) to remove inquiries, I find it perfectly "okay" to do so. If, however, I have an obligation to a company who I gave my word that I would make good on a debt, then it is my obligation to do so. I can't help the fact that you are defensive about some of your own past obligations that you may have some how avoided to pay. I personally don't agree with that tactic. If you have a problem with that, so be it. It's my opinion, and like anal chasms, everyone has one (some bigger than others). Hawg Hanner
INQUIRES HAVE NO PURPOSE EXCEPT TO INCREASE THE COST OF CREDIT!!! "THEY" say that inquires PREVENT excessive credit lines...but wouldn't 8 or 10 new accounts on your credit report in the same month do the same thing, at a much lower cost???
NO NO NO, I remember specifically someone asked you what you thought of inqs and you said you did not beleive that having legitimate inqs removed was acceptable. If my search worked I would find it but it doesn't so marc, can you find it?
I for one have paid every SINGLE dime that I owe to anyone. As a matter of fact, I had to pay someone ELSE'S bills to satisfy a lender for my refi b/c the bureaus had my files merged, so how does that make me for moral, paying someone else's bills? Hey that might even make me a saint.
I'm very happy that you paid your obligations. I have done the same. As for your question, perhaps you should be sure of something before you accuse someone of a transgression. I'm quite sure I never got on someone's case about removing inquiries. I would LOVE for you to find that post. Hawg Hanner
there you go again making ASSUMPTION and thereby making an A$$ out of yourself. Show me one post where I have ever said anything about not paying back one of my contractual obligations. You won't find one, because it's never happened. you make my point EXACTLY . . . it is YOUR "opinion" that says one should pay back an obligation, yet you chose to enforce "your opinion" on someone else, even tho' you had no idea whether they had actually incurred the debt or not. (he didn't know, remember????? i do!) More importantly, you prove my point about people like you. Your morals are just like your opinions, not based on anything meaningful and open to change and "interpretation" to fit your situation. Maybe you should have just kept your "opinion" to yourself in the aforementioned threads after SEVERAL posters asked you to. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation. BTW- just like you, the Original poster in the "lawbill" thread was looking for a LEGAL way to avoid the judgment if at all possible. . .sounds ALOT like YOU trying to find a LEGAL way to remove inq. if at all possible.
Marc, does you're search work? If it does can you look up the old threads with him b/c I am SURE that he said challenging legitmate inqs and having them 'bumped' off was morally wrong. Look hawg, I was not trying to flame you here, as a matter of fact, if you see my post up there, I was laughing about it but now you are denying that you ever said it was wrong, and challanging me and my morals. So I will prove you wrong now.
hawg, i've been saying you were a TROLL and counterfeit since you got here. Now here's the proof. I hate it that my intuition is almost always right, but give me a break. . . i can spot people like you a mile away. Now be a good boy and apologize about being an A$$ since you got on the board!!!
Now hawg, you said it was dishonest to get legitmate inqs removed now what has changed you're tune? Maybe getting SCREWED by creditors like opie (that is who it was right?) was.
In my opinion, implying that it is dishonest and that it is 'obvious' that you would not do it for that reason is berating.
Hawg, we're still waiting on an apology. . . as far as i'm concerned, you have contributed little if anything to this board, and have often "disrupted" it by your "moral" accusations, which in my mind makes you a troll. . . As i have said before, why don't you just read along and keep quiet and learn something if you're not a []. That way you won't be booted along with all the other self-righteous hypocrites like Greg Fisher.
