The DWB Case lost in Court

[Ronnie J]

Off Topic

[ForumWars]

Off Topic

[NYGman]

Off Topic

[jasonDWB]

Off Topic

[ForumWars]

Off Topic

[NYGman]

deleted

[NYGman]

Deleted by me, as it is off topic, and the other posts are now gone...

Just a reminder, no need to point out spelling mistakes, they are irrelevant to the discussion

[ArthurWankspittle]

Can we do as suggested and leave it now please. I have let the last post through as closure on this.

[Ronnie J]

[Mod deletes stupid off-topic post. - WS]

[longdog]

This is getting ridiculous, this squabble is now spread across at least three threads.

Do us all a favour and take it somewhere else.

Agreed... I have no idea who any of these people are or what it is they are arguing about and, given the childish and pathetic behaviour of the posters, I have no interest in finding out.

[Pox]

Phew!

Have they gone now?

Can I come out from under the covers?

[wserra]

Only if I can borrow your login - a Pox on both their houses.

[AndyPandy]

Phew!

Have they gone now?

Can I come out from under the covers?

[Pox]

Only if I can borrow your login - a Pox on both their houses.

You may, and with pleasure.

'on both their houses' - were there only two? Felt like loads of the blighters.

[BHF]

Off Topic - not a good start

[Angolvagyok]

https://media.giphy.com/media/nLhdSinRtaL2E/giphy.gif

I know it's off-topic, feel free to delete, but it describes the last couple of days of quatloos pretty well. Good job, Arthur and WSerra, that must have been difficult.

[TheNewSaint]

As long as people are denied access to qualified resources, they will have to rely on unqualified ones. You can hardly blame the service providers for trying to fill a gap in the market so to speak, or accuse them of being "scammers".

This reminds me of a review I read about a gambling book: "90% of it is good advice, and 10% of it is bad. But it's impossible to tell which is which." Implying that you should avoid the book altogether.

I'm sure some people in this line of work are ethical, competent, fair, and do their best to help their clients. But an industry with no regulation, no professional standards, and no protection for victims is going to attract scammers. And consumers have no way to tell which is which. Those who wish to provide legitimate services of this type will always be faced with the negative perception of the field as a whole. It is inherent to the line of work they have chosen for themselves.

And I have no problem calling the likes of GOODF scammers. Their very name, "Get Out Of Debt Free", announces the scam: that they can cancel legitimate debts where the debtor has received value, and where the lender has every right to expect repayment. They provide nothing but failed, stupid, useless, copycat, cockamamie theories. They turn manageable problems into massive debt, jail, and homelessness. They waste valuable judicial resources, which contributes to the problem of there not being enough court time and professional counsel for everyone. This forum is replete with stories of this type.

[Pox]

Good job, Arthur and WSerra, that must have been difficult.

Ditto.

[Bones]

Don't know what has been going on recently and to be honest don't really care.

Can Jason and whoever it is that has a hardon for him, please just book a hotel room and sort out your mutal urges and just get it on. I am sure you will both make a lovely couple.

As for the rest of us, can we get back to taking the piss out of the Crawfrauds, the two mickeys, Colon, Love a pint taylor and co

On a more serious note, come on grow up the mods have better things to do with their time than deal with your lovers tiff.

[ForumWars]

As long as people are denied access to qualified resources, they will have to rely on unqualified ones. You can hardly blame the service providers for trying to fill a gap in the market so to speak, or accuse them of being "scammers".

This reminds me of a review I read about a gambling book: "90% of it is good advice, and 10% of it is bad. But it's impossible to tell which is which." Implying that you should avoid the book altogether.

Yes, that can be a problem when the average punter wouldn't know how to recognise the 10% that's bad.

And I have no problem calling the likes of GOODF scammers. Their very name, "Get Out Of Debt Free", announces the scam: that they can cancel legitimate debts where the debtor has received value, and where the lender has every right to expect repayment. They provide nothing but failed, stupid, useless, copycat, cockamamie theories. They turn manageable problems into massive debt, jail, and homelessness. They waste valuable judicial resources, which contributes to the problem of there not being enough court time and professional counsel for everyone. This forum is replete with stories of this type.

I thoroughly disagree with their methods because they are not based on actual statute or case law. Was greatly surprised to see they even have their own TV program, although it's been a few years since I saw that on one of the Sky channels. I'm not sure they could be considered scammers though, not if they don't charge for their services. I don't think they do, they only ask for donations.