Credit Card & Loan Balance's Wipped Clean !!!

PROLIANT

uktyler wrote: »

Or you could try facing up to your debts and paying them off, like the rest of us. Or you could of tried not borrowing so much in the first place. I'm with PROLIANT on this, you borrow the money but don't want to pay it back?

Then where do you think the money comes from when you borrow and don't pay it back?

It comes from the rest of us, who have to pay more to cover your money.

Take responsibility for your actions, don't borrow what you can't afford, and pay back what you owe.

And no I don't work for a bank, but I do work hard and pay what I owe.

Here here! :beer:

udydudy

PROLIANT wrote: »

I do try, however when muppets on a public forum come out with stupid comments I tend to overlook mi sig, bothered.....hmm..no.;)

I can understand your feelings but at no point of time can abusive language be condoned. By using the reasoning "that the posts worked you up" and hence you used abusive language is similar to the guys who want to get out of debt using technicality . Infact they have a better reason, they are (by their own follies) being threatened with repo or bankruptcy and are at their wits end(all worked up saing their lives)hence they are looking out for technicalities to get out of debt. What is your excuse?

I do not say hence its okay either.

I have been visiting these forums since 2004 and hvae found it useful without having to use abusive langauge depsit finding quite a few posts totall against my beliefs or highly immoral. In fact I stopped using my signature(until I can think of a sober one) as I do not want to gloat over my financial position whilst several are in severe financial problems, some their own doing and some a consequence of current financial crisis.

Lets all be civil and not find the need to resort to abusive language, Especially proliant as you have had quite a few many great positively contributive posts.

PROLIANT

udydudy wrote: »

I can understand your feelings but at no point of time can abusive language be condoned..

At no point have I expected my "abusive" posts to be condoned, where did I say that? I speak my mind and if I upset people, tough. Its only a public forum, nothing sacred to protect here, I am a British citizen and I am entitled to free-speech whether that be on this digital bandwagon, in a newspaper or in a public arena, I will say what I want to who I want, I will not be dictated to by any forum diplomats who sit on the fence, I am on my side of the fence and will do as I please. End of.

uktyler

udydudy wrote: »

Infact they have a better reason, they are (by their own follies) being threatened with repo or bankruptcy and are at their wits end(all worked up saing their lives)hence they are looking out for technicalities to get out of debt.

So they should be allowed to wipe out some of their debt BECAUSE they are in debt? I can't see the logic of that.

If people don't take responsibility for their actions, and don't have to pay back money they borrowed then there is no incentive for ever paying the money they owe.

The compensation culture is forcing this country down the pan, a few lawyers make a lot of money, and the rest of us have to pay for it.

This website is supposed to be about saving money, but from some of the posts I've seen its about scamming money, and getting out of paying what you owe.

I may not agree with PROLIANT's use of language, but he makes a very valid point, why should the rest of us bail others out of their financial mess?

We are doing that with the banks now, through our taxes. Do you feel its fair to pay extra taxes to bail the banks out? I don't, and I don't think I should pay extra for my credit to pay for someone else's debt.

Miss_Behaving

uktyler wrote: »

I may not agree with PROLIANT's use of language, but he makes a very valid point, why should the rest of us bail others out of their financial mess?

We are doing that with the banks now, through our taxes. Do you feel its fair to pay extra taxes to bail the banks out? I don't, and I don't think I should pay extra for my credit to pay for someone else's debt.

Totally agree, I work very hard to keep out of debt by going without the latest gadets/clothes and expensive holidays that my peers rack up debts buying. What appears to be the message promoted here is that you can spend what you want and just write it off later - that hardly seems fair does it? What would happen if everyone decided to do this? Whilst I appreciate that some people are victims of circumstance and are not helped by the crippling interest rates and charges, I feel it unfair that there are those in society who seem to lack any moral responsiblity and continue to spend assuming that it's ok 'cos they'll never have to pay it back because there's bound to be a loophole somewhere.

nobblyned

~Brock~ wrote: »

http://www.mishcon.com/news/articles/docs/article_119.aspx

It's worth reading this in full because it is hilarious. Remember this is the type of guy that was setting himself up as a 'debtbuster' !!

Excellent read, thanks, most amusing. Debunks the rubbish behind these claims.

udydudy

uktyler wrote: »

So they should be allowed to wipe out some of their debt BECAUSE they are in debt? I can't see the logic of that....

I may not agree with PROLIANT's use of language, but he makes a very valid point, why should the rest of us bail others out of their financial mess?..

I never said it is correct for people to use technicalities to wipe of their debt. Like you correctly pointed out why should we savers have to pay for other peoples follies. especially which they willingly got themselves into.

My comparision was specifically the use of abusive language. and the comparision was that if proliant thinks it is absolutely alirght to use abusive language(citing freedom of speech) then how different is he to the cleric who uses inflamatory languages in his speech. Isnt that freedom of speech?

I was merely stating that there is no need of abusive language. thats all.

And coming to the second point of debt, there could be some people out there who did not necessarily amass debt. Even any of us savers could get in to this mess.

Hypothetically (God Forbid), lets say you have a 70% mortgage and quite a bit of savings in the bank. The bank goes bust and with that your savings and you n your spouse both lose your jobs.. it will not take long to start missing your mortgage payments, credit card payments. then what?

I do not exactly sympathize with the scores of people who took on debt and lived their lives to the hilt and blew all the money away and now are looking at the bnaks and saying it the bnaks mistake they should not have lent it to us.

But at the same time I do not believe in proliants way of expression using abusive language.

xxxxxxx

uktyler

udydudy wrote: »

It only shows proliants pathetic state of mind.

I agreed with you right up to this point, it's not right to make abusive posts, but it's OK to make insulting ones?

udydudy

uktyler wrote: »

I agreed with you right up to this point, it's not right to make abusive posts, but it's OK to make insulting ones?

I guess I shouldnt have used that word so I have deleted it from my post.

bert&ernie

PROLIANT wrote: »

At no point have I expected my "abusive" posts to be condoned, where did I say that? I speak my mind and if I upset people, tough. Its only a public forum, nothing sacred to protect here, I am a British citizen and I am entitled to free-speech whether that be on this digital bandwagon, in a newspaper or in a public arena, I will say what I want to who I want, I will not be dictated to by any forum diplomats who sit on the fence, I am on my side of the fence and will do as I please. End of.

Despite your assertion that you are entitled to free speech, I think you'll find that the owners of this site are free to edit your contributions as they see fit. We may have a general right to speak our minds, but nobody is obliged to give us a platform to do so.

As i have said before, the fact that you frequently descend into childish abuse doesn't particularly offend me personally. However, it does suggest to me that your commitment to the principle of free speech only extends as far as yourself and people who happen to share your opinions. When the views expressed here don't fit with your worldview, you simply resort to abuse. I think its time you grew up a little.

I think we have established that some people have a moral problem with those that might seek to use legal means to avoid repaying money they have borrowed. I seem to recall that some people expressed similar views about bank charge reclaiming. We can argue about whether or not these two issues are morally equivalent, but they both involved what could be described as legal technicalities and the net effect is the same - costs will be transfered to the broader customer base.

I can understand the moral objection, but I don't see the point in preaching about it - other than perhaps it re-enforces ones own view of the world and fosters a sense of moral superiority.