Forum
|
|
Forum
|
| Subtopic | Msgs | Last Updated | |
 | New Website | 12 | 04/02 06:31pm |
| $200 REWARD to the first person who provides proof of payment to "Robert" for a trade line | 5 | 04/01 10:04am |
| Christine Baker | 4 | 03/31 07:44am |
| Christine is a Fake | 7 | 03/20 01:35pm |
| Ms Feathers | 8 | 03/14 11:21pm |
| Credit Ranger | 4 | 03/30 07:29pm |
| Adding Trade Lines | 42 | 03/15 09:33pm |
| Kristi Feathers-Be Careful | 16 | 03/12 09:52am |
     | Friday, February 25, 2000 - 07:12 am  Christine - You wrote: And I hope I never ever see anything as ridiculous as Rbielak's posting about extended reporting and inquiries staying on forever. I am assuming that you are referring to this statement of mine (copied verbatim from above): However, any inquiry pulled by a potential employer for a position that pays more than $75k per year OR an inquiry for loans over a certain amount can remain on your report indefinitely (source: the three CRA's). Because your egotistical self-centeredness is so terribly blatant, I thought everyone that frequents these forums and watches you criticize, censure and condemn people simply because you don't like them would like to see just how TERRIBLY WRONG, yet AGAIN, you are and were}. My source for the above statement was directly from the CRA's themselves. In addition, I'd like to you take a look at the following document on the web. It's on the Federal Consumer Information Center (Pueblo, CO) web site. The document is entitled "How to Dispute Credit Report Errors" from Feb 1998. Take a quick look at it paying specific attention to the section titled "Accurate Negative Information". And just in case you're too lazy to check it out, it specifically states the following: ... Accurate negative information can generally stay on your report for 7 years. There are certain exceptions: Credit information reported in response to an application for a job with a salary of more than $75,000 has no time limit. Credit information reported because of an application for more than $150,000 worth of credit or life insurance has no time limit ... Not only that, but your own posting fully contradicts your claim that I was "ridiculous". So. Is the Federal Government wrong as well? They're the ones who passed the law that GOVERNS what gets reported and for how long (it's called the F-C-R-A, just in case you didn't know this). The next time you crawl out of the back of your ole' pickup truck and dial in, be certain to check your sources before you open your fat mouth and call somebody a liar. You provide a decent forum here for those in need, but you certainly manage to turn it into a spectacle by playing little Miss Know-it-all-can't-wait-to-call-someone-an-idiot because "I own this site" instead of because you're right and you're, heaven forbig, actually helping someone. You are an absolutely rude individual with no regard for others (nor the truth), and everybody knows it. You have continually claimed that I regularly post incorrect information, yet you've never once validated it or proven it. You are simply a liar, a bully and a fool. rcb
|
| | Friday, February 25, 2000 - 07:14 pm HOWEVER, just today Bielak posted another rather offensive posting with personal attacks on me. That's yet another lie. Not only did she delete my post that proved she lied, but she deleted her own post that contained the lie. Did you notice the entire thread was deleted? Yup. And there were ZERO personal attacks (I don't stoop to her level), which is another reason she deleted it (so she could claim that I did and not allow you to see that she made it up). Rbielak (rcb) continues to post here, and it looks like Lockwood and/or Bielak are also posting anonymous You said in a written statement the other day that you "banned rbielak from posting", so I assumed that you disabled the account. I didn't bother trying to use my name/password. Apparently he took down his site because hardly anyone except Lockwood posted there, and so he decided to post HERE again. Nope. It was down for maintenance purposes for a number of hours. I don't mind spending a few hundred or even thousand dollars on lawyers if I can expect a judgment against Bielak. As we all know, he's got a PLATINUM credit card and good credit, so I should be able to collect. That's a good one. First of all, you have to HAVE a few hundred or a thousand dollars in order to spend it. Secondly, if you can get a judge to grant restitution because I've called you rude, arrogant, egotistical and a bully, I'll double the order. You are truly priceless. What's the law? Do I HAVE to take Bielak's and Lockwood's insults and attacks, posted in MY Forum? I've never attacked you. And if I've called a rose a rose and you consider that an insult, then so be it. But I'm not going to let someone lie about me, call my statements 'ridiculous' without a single shred of proof, delete my factual rebuttal that proved you were nothing but a liar by backing up my statements (with federal government website links) and then continue to claim that I attacked you. If it was an attack, why didn't you leave it in public view so everybody could witness it? Because it wasn't, and you didn't want everybody to see that you were a liar and a fool, that's why you deleted both YOUR original post and my reply.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |