Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Tuesday, January 25, 2000 - 10:43 am  This is a post regarding a Washington Post Article and in response to Denise Richardson's original post. A reporter's job is to present a balanced story according to the media research center. Unfortunately the Washington Post does not have a history of unbiased reporting as you can see by the research the MRC has done about their coverage of John Sununu. Although there are many biases in this article the most obvious one is the Bias by Selection of Sources. This link references an expert who is aware that he is only quoted when the reporter agrees with his opinion: Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution is one of the most quoted experts in Washington, or in television terminology, "talking heads." So he knows how journalists often go looking for quotes to fit their favorite argument into a news story. Hess wrote in The Washington Post: "If I don't respond appropriately, they say they'll get back to me. Which means they won't. This is a big city and someone else is sure to have the magic words they are looking for...TV news is increasingly dishonest in that increasingly its stories are gatherings of quotes or other material to fit a hypothesis." ************************************************** There are two sides to every story. The reporter did not choose to present both sides. I could literally tear this article apart showing the various types of bias in it, but what I've done so far is sufficient for me. If the reporter wasn't even willing to get a quote from one of the big 3 credit repositories on the matter then you and I both know that Michelle Singletary was not willing to let the reader make up their own mind -- she was determined to make their mind up for them.
|
| | Tuesday, January 25, 2000 - 12:38 pm No Sean, I don't agree with you at all so do not imply or put words in my mouth such as your statement that "you and I both know..." Michelle Singletary wrote a totally unbiased article based on the information she had from the FTC. Simply because there was no quote from the CRA's doesn't make her article biased. She is, after all, a consumer too. You consistantly take apart anyone that doesn't specifically see things in your light. It is interesting though, and very noticable, that specific questions people ask you when attempting to make their points, constantly go unanswered.
|
| | Tuesday, January 25, 2000 - 01:17 pm Totally unbiased? Surely you jest. How can you claim that an article that is titled "Credit Bureaus are Earning a Failing Grade" is unbiased? Who graded the credit bureaus? I didn't see anything in the article about a grading system. Obviously the reporter decided to grade them herself in order to make a headline. Here's a quote from the article: "But what's most disturbing to me is that no one really knows how accurate the credit reports are because there is no independent procedure to double-check them on a regular basis." Yeah that sounds real unbiased. Another quote: "Clearly, the industry still needs more oversight." Well, it isn't clear to me and I'll bet Experian, Equifax and Trans Union will say that's not clear at all either. This is not a fact, it's an opinion. It does not belong in a factual story. Another quote: "Consumer groups say that's hogwash. Their studies show mistakes in a significant number of credit reports, including errors serious enough to result in wrongful denial of credit." Wow -- talk about fuzzy speech. "Consumer groups"? Which? Who are they? "Their studies"? Funded by whom? Where can I get a copy of the study? Have these studies been performed in accordance with accepted statistical techniques? Has there been any peer review? "...errors in a significant number"? What number do they consider significant? What percentage had errors? How did they determine if an error existed -- did they just ask the consumer if it was right or wrong or did they do independent checks? What did they define as an error? This "article" you have posted is most likely just an editorial. As such it's nothing more than the reporter's opinion. Opinions are like noses: everyone's got one.
|
| | Tuesday, January 25, 2000 - 03:28 pm Sean: The founder of Time Magazine once said that unbiased reporting is about as impossible as it is undesirable. You said, "This 'article' you have posted is most likely just an editorial." Of course it is commentary. Why do you have to say "most likely"? It sounds as if you are having a hard time distinguishing between a news story and opinion. The author is listed on this page as a columnist, not a "reporter." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/index/bfcolumn.htm Even if it were presented as hard news, it wouldn't be free from bias. What-- do want all the journalists to turn in their pens to you so you can redistribute them as you see fit? Go ahead. Write your own story, submit it to the Post, the Times, or any of your right wing publications that you want, but quit whining about something irrelevant: your angst that nobody wants to hear your point of view. Could it be that-- perhaps-- just a thought, here-- um, maybe-- you're... WRONG? When you say, "A reporter's job is to present a balanced story according to the media research center," and the link from it goes to a page with the headline: "How to Identify Liberal Media Bias," you look like an extremist yourself. And who is the arbiter of what a "balanced story" is and "unbiased reporting"? You? The public is smarter than you think; you should have more respect. Anybody can contribute to this forum; anybody can throw up a web site; but not everybody wins arguments and effects change. Stop being a sore loser. This is one sophomoric discussion of objectivity and bias. One of the most common tactics of argument losers is to attack the tactics the other side used to win. The other tactic is throwing in tangents. But, rarely do either have anything to do with the issue: scoring is a big joke.
|
| | Tuesday, January 25, 2000 - 04:13 pm Greg: I agree with your insight and objectivity. Sean: The headline you refer to came from Truth...the fact that they were just SANCTIONED by the FTC is enough to say "...failing grade" you just don't want to see, hear or accept the TRUTH. As far as the rest of your post, it would be futile to respond and doesn't merit an answer. As I stated before, I have no desire to attempt to reason with an unreasonable, biased person. What if you were SCORED by a mysterious, unknown formula and/or group of people (such as those on this board) based on what little we know of you, and that "score" was attached to every aspect of your life? Oh, and remember, you would have no knowledge of our secret formula, and of course, you would not be able to correct or verify it..and, no, you would not even be allowed to know what your score was...Would you find that to be fair???
|
| | Wednesday, January 26, 2000 - 09:41 am Greg: I live in Los Angeles where we have the "Los Angeles River." If you've never heard of it, don't be surprised. It's completely concreted in the bed of what was a river and all the storm drains empty into it. Every year around this time it rains a bit and the river gets to going pretty quick. Every year someone thinks they can swim that river. Every year at least one person dies. Every year public officials warn people not to try to swim it when it's raging. It doesn't matter. Someone died just yesterday when he lost his grip on some line strung across it for him to catch and he was swept out to sea. Moral: People are dumb. Denise: Hey, guess what? I do have a score assigned to me, that I don't know, that follows me around everywhere, and makes it tough for me to get a credit card, buy a new car, or refinance my house. I don't know the formula. I can't get it fixed. I'm ok with that. You, on the other hand, are allegedly the victim of a false foreclosure/mortgage charge off report that makes it difficult for you to get credit, right? Aren't you suing or something? Do you think that makes you the most unbiased person in the world on credit reporting activity? Next you'll be telling me the mother whose son was just shot in the street is the most unbiased person to ask about the pros and cons of gun control, right? Or should we ask the guy who just scared two criminals away with a shotgun what he thinks of gun control? Neither of those people are unbiased. You say the story is the truth but that's just your opinion. Three out of three credit repositories were unable to handle the matter to the FTC's satisfaction. That's a clear sign right there that expectations are too high. I'd be far more convinced if one of the credit bureaus had performed adequately and the other two didn't. In that case you could legitimately look at the other two and say, "What's your problem? XYZ Credit Repository, right over there, has no problem with this so why can't you guys do it right? Obviously you don't have the importance of this issue in the proper perspective. Here's a few million dollar fine to wake you guys up." Of course, the story did say one thing to my satisfaction: Both Experian and Trans Union turned away 1 million plus consumers, but Equifax turned away less than a million. Proof that Equifax is a better company. Go Equifax. ************************************************** Finally, let's cut to the root of the problem as to why the credit repositories can't answer all the calls they need to. Take a look at this person's advice. Basically he recommends spamming the credit repositories until they remove the item you want off of your report whether it is accurate or not. How do you expect a price-regulated repository to handle consumers efficiently when they have to deal with things like that? They can't! You want better service out of the credit repositories? Find out who that person is and punch them repeatedly in the arm until it really starts to hurt. That's the only solution.
|
| | Wednesday, January 26, 2000 - 11:13 am Sean: I'm reasonably sure of who you mean, but for the benefit of the shadow audience, to whom are you referring as "dumb"?
|
| | Wednesday, January 26, 2000 - 11:55 am Greg: Your comment was that the public is smarter than [I] think. While I'm not saying that every person out there is dumb, you should be aware statistics indicate that 49.99% percent of the public has below average intelligence.
|
| | Wednesday, January 26, 2000 - 01:23 pm Sean: Do you think that the public is too stupid to use independent thought, so they need someone like you to edit their reading material-- or add something to it so they get the truth?
|
| | Wednesday, January 26, 2000 - 02:29 pm Sean, you think the FTC's expectations are too high. Your concluded that because all three agencies didn't live up to the FTC's expectations. So, can I conclude that if I shot you in the leg, my sister Mary shot you in the arm, and my sister Anne shot you in the stomach, you would find nothing wrong with that? Your expectations would have been just a little high?
|
| | Wednesday, January 26, 2000 - 03:24 pm Sean: Your statement is: "Three out of three credit repositories were unable to handle the matter to the FTC's satisfaction. That's a clear sign right there that expectations are too high." Another viewpoint from a reasonable person might just be that the big three are getting a "failing grade". Your analysis is as absurd as an elementary student who receklessly disregards his studies and homework daily and then insists that he couldn't get a passing grade because the teacher's expectations were too high!
|
| | Thursday, January 27, 2000 - 09:09 am Greg: No, I think that newspaper reporters should present both sides of the story instead of just one. I subscribe to the big lie theory that if you tell a lie often enough, long enough and loud enough then people will come to believe it regardless how absurd it is. Christine: If three people shot (at?) me, I'd shoot (at?) them back. And I would not recommend myself as an unbiased person as to the persons flaws or lack of same. Denise: My point is that Equifax did substantially better than the other two, but still got a "failing grade" in the eyes of the aforementioned reporter. From my review of the facts apparently Equifax was rated a D and Experian/Trans Union got a Fail. I'd further go on to point out that tactics like this are a big part of the problem.
|
| | Thursday, January 27, 2000 - 09:45 am Sean: Do you think the article is a report or commentary?
|
| | Thursday, January 27, 2000 - 11:37 am I am 90 percent sure the article is commentary. Furthermore I felt the facts the reporter presented were sketchy and unconvincing. Compare that to a good commentary article like this one excoriating the failures of price controls. Isn't it obvious that the credit reporting industry also suffers from price controls? Let the credit reporting agencies charge whatever they want for credit reports and we'll see the quality of service improve. As it is now we have a shortage of people there to handle our complaints and put our credit profiles in order.
|
| | Thursday, January 27, 2000 - 12:08 pm Assuming it is commentary (I can't believe I'm actually saying that), then why did you say, "A reporter's job is to present a balanced story according to the media research center. Unfortunately the Washington Post does not have a history of unbiased reporting as you can see by the research the MRC has done about their coverage of John Sununu"? I think you really believed you had something when you started this thread-- blasting the article as biased. That's the weird thing: I can't even argue with you because you can't tell the difference between hard news and commentary. This is so pathetic, I actually feel sorry for you.
|
| | Thursday, January 27, 2000 - 11:59 pm Sean: If three people shot at you, you'd shoot back. What would you do after three people stole your money?
|
| | Friday, January 28, 2000 - 07:01 am Depends. Is this a semi-legal kind of theft like they're my renters and they haven't been paying rent like they should and/or they have borrowed money from me and haven't paid like they should? Is this a white-collar embezzlement style theft? Is this a blue-collar car jacking type of theft? Or is it a legal I-paid-more-than-I-needed-to-because-I-made-a-mistake kind of theft?
|
| | Saturday, January 29, 2000 - 07:53 am Sean: "Or is it a legal I-paid-more-than-I-needed-to-because-I-made-a-mistake kind of theft?" HUH? You previously posted: "Three out of three credit repositories were unable to handle the matter to the FTC's satisfaction. That's a clear sign right there that expectations are too high." I just want to know why you don't draw the conclusion that your expectations of my family were too high. Isn't it obvious? We all shoot and steal, but there's got to be something wrong with YOUR expectation.
|
| | Saturday, January 29, 2000 - 07:58 am Sean: You posted "Isn't it obvious that the credit reporting industry also suffers from price controls? Let the credit reporting agencies charge whatever they want for credit reports and we'll see the quality of service improve." I am NOT aware of any price control. Don't the CRAs sell reports for literally PENNIES??? I personally think the charges for reports should be MUCH higher, and then the CRAs could spend that cash on complying with what little legal protection I have.
|
| | Saturday, January 29, 2000 - 08:02 pm Hey Sean, Watch where you point that hyperlink to the anonymous who suggested” letter Blitzing" it also points right at my very helpful advise above him:).... I guess our posts are too close together. Don't want anyone thinking you are referencing to me.:) Ciao Kristi Feathers Carreon & Assoc.
|
| | Monday, January 31, 2000 - 11:31 am Christine: You're not aware of any price controls? Try hitting up this link which indicates that credit reporting agencies cannot charge more than $8.00 -- yet consider the standard cost of a credit profile to your average small business and/or landlord. As you can see it's much closer to $10.00 and that's with minimal human interaction. You fill out a form, fax it over -- they pull the profile and fax it back. To phone your order in would probably cost at least $1.00 more per inquiry. Accordingly the credit repositories cannot provide the same level of service at $8.00/report as other places can provide at $10 or $11/report. Is that really a surprise?
|
| | Thursday, February 03, 2000 - 05:58 pm Sean: Your first link (to the Fair Cardit Reporting Act) refers only to disclosures to consumers. What price controls exist on credit reports bought by lenders? How much do you pay?
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 07:53 am As far as I know there are no price controls on credit reports sold to lenders. I purchase my credit profiles through UD Registry. To initiate a consumer loan I would pay for the following items: One credit report alone ($7.25) plus FICO score ($0.60) plus subscriber decoding ($0.80) plus a copy mailed to me ($0.85) for a total of $9.50 and, I might add, I was charged a $25.00 setup fee to get an account with UD Registry so the cost even higher than that.
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 08:18 am I think Christine's point is that the national repositories sell their reports for so little, they can't afford to be accurate. I would be happy to give them three times as much for a mortgage loan credit report if they could get the data (and thus, the score) right. The industry is too stupid to see that. It is confounding.
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 10:31 am Well, imagine that one of the credit bureaus offered a special program. For a mere $100 any consumer could have a a positive vetting on their credit profile. They'd check and double check every negative entry. They'd ensure that your payment history was right. They'd call up all those lenders that only report a high balance instead of your credit limit and find out what the credit limit is. They'd double check every inquiry to make sure it was consumer-initiated... They'd get sued by the FTC. You see, in the minds of many people they're supposed to do all that already and FOR FREE. The mere suggestion that you could have a higher quality profile by paying would be deemed hopelessly classist. Many would ask, "Why should people with money have a more accurate credit profile than people without?" For the same reason that people with more money drive better cars, own bigger houses and get better health care is why. If this plan is not already illegal it would swiftly be made illegal and we'd be back to the beautiful, well-regulated credit profiling system that we currently enjoy today.
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 10:41 am About 10 years ago Experian (Then known as TRW) had a program called, I believe, "Credentials". For a small annual fee (around $ 30, I believe), you got 1) free copies of your credit report whenever you wanted, 2) mail notification of any "negative" entrie being added to your credit report. Presumably that would allow you to keep an up-to-the-minute track of any negative information, and allow you to start the dispute process within a week or so of the information showing up on your report (as opposed to the negative information sitting there with you unaware of it until you applied for credit and was turned down). The fact that such a program was tried once, suggests to me that a similar program could be fashioned around Credit Scoring (monthly letter telling you what your (base) score is (although it would be up to you to try to figure out what changed it), and e-mail/snail-mail notifications of ANY changes to your report (additions, deletions, inquiries, "aging"). I bet people would be willing to pay $ 50-100 /year for such instant notifications.
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 12:39 pm Sean: I didn't mention any special program; the price should go up for everybody. If the national repositories sell the data for $3.00 now, I would be willing to give them $6.00 if they could get it right. That's not out of reach of any American. Today's credit reports are not beautiful. There is even a bill in the current congress proposing allowing everyone to have theirs for free once a year. Why? In introducing the Consumer Credit Report Accuracy and Privacy Act of 1999, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard commented, "The fact that the three largest credit bureaus have 450 million files on individual consumers and process over 2 billion pieces of data every month presents a daunting challenge to maintain the most accurate records possible. Given these figures, the chance of acquiring inaccurate information is highly likely. In fact, some studies have shown that up to one third of credit reports could contain serious mistakes." It is unknown how those mistakes affect credit scores. The credit bureaus should stop kidding themselves that they can keep track of all those transactions.
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 12:41 pm That's not the same thing. Seeing your credit profile as much as you want? Big deal ... I have that through http://www.consumerinfo.com/ and they provide me with alerts of all changes to my credit profile. It isn't the same as having an informed, cooperative and motivated CRA employee taking action to ensure that your credit profile is accurate. As it stands now lazy CRA employees would rather delete a beneficial item than take the time to get the information on it exactly right.
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 01:14 pm Having been Lucille Roybal-Allard's constituent (when I lived in zip 90017) I am fully aware of her misguided attempt to legislate a free credit report a year. This is one of the stupidest and most unproductive ideas I've heard yet. We all agree that the big three lack the resources necessary to ensure that every bit of the billions of pieces of information that come into their database is accurate. Her proposed solution is to give a free credit report out? How will that help? Won't that force credit bureaus to divert people that could be used to process incoming disputes to providing free credit reports? Won't that result in an overall decline in credit report accuracy? I think so. You seem to have the unsupported belief that a credit bureau could just raise prices and gain added revenue. That's not likely. Currently most of the credit bureau's revenue comes from the account reviews performed by credit card issuers every 6 months to determine if their payors are still good risks. There is nothing magic about the 6 month review. It wouldn't take too much of a raise in credit report price before one of them will have the bright idea to go to reviews every 7 months.
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 01:49 pm Sean: If we agree on the inaccuracy situation, why did you call it the "beautiful, well-regulated credit profiling system that we currently enjoy today." I used the legislator's statement only to show the accuracy problem. And if the creditors balk and buy fewer reports, so be it. It will mean that their data will be less reliable, and they'll lose money go out of business. What's the point of basing their decisions on bad data? Aren't the idiot credit card companies up in arms about bankruptcies? You would think they'd want more "predictiveness" (oh, brother) and accuracy in their data. One of the major problems in correcting the accuracy problem is that it is a voluntary system, and the credit bureaus won't come down hard on contributors who screw up, lest they pull the plug on the bureaus-- a dirty, incestuous little problem. You think creditscoring.com was fun? Wait till you see creditaccuracy.com. That's what I'm doing about it. What are you doing about it?
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 02:33 pm Why should the credit reporting agencies have to give us our credit reports for free and why shouldn't they be allowed to charge us $100.00 per year to make sure "our" reports are accurate? This is why: We are not the customers of the credit reporting agencies. We are the livestock that's up for sale. They have built a multi billion dollar industry from selling our personal information and we don't receive so much as a penny of the profits. The least they could do is learn how to run their business in a competent manner and give us free copies of "our" credit reports once a year, so we can help them do their job by informing them of their mistakes.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 06:41 am Greg: Let me rephrase myself: "...\sarcasm{beautiful, well-regulated credit profiling system that we currently enjoy today.}" What am I doing to try to fix the problem? Well, I've asked the FTC for two opinion letters and they inform me it will probably take 18 months for those to get written. I'm suing a collection agency for violations of the FDCPA (contacting me after a cease & desist letter). Also I'm waiting to see how Exxon starts reporting on my credit profile and if they don't report my credit limit I'm going to sue them too for failure to disclose their inferior reporting policy to me in teeny-weeny little print hidden somewhere in the depths of my credit card agreement (which may not be much, but it will be a step in the right direction). I'd also like to sue Providian dba Aria for not telling me the reasons I didn't score higher but I can't find anyone to take the case so I've ordered a pro se legal kit and I think I'll try to do it myself (one of the FTC letters is about this too). I've also contacted my congressman asking for modifications to the FCRA permitting consumers to discriminate against repositories that aren't responsive to them (I'd blacklist Trans Union directing all future inquiries for my credit profile to the other two). That's probably not going to happen but it won't be for lack of effort on my part. Barbara: I don't know how things work where you're at but where I'm at I have to pay money for water to drink whether I get it in bottles or out of the tap. Nothing in life is free. Now for some reason you think it's ok for the government to send people with guns to force credit bureaus to give you a credit report for free. Would you also feel sympathetic to a lone gunman who walked into one of the big three and held them up for a credit report?
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 08:02 am Sean: Have you posted the details of your activites? Where can we read your correspondence?
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 10:30 am I've also contacted my congressman asking for modifications to the FCRA permitting consumers to discriminate against repositories that aren't responsive to them But remember, this is a subscription service, and if the creditor you're applying with doesn't do business with anyone other than the CRA you've blacklisted, then you are SOL.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 11:06 am Sean, you can't compare this to a purchase or a mutual agreement because that is not what it is. We are not the customers of the credit reporting agencies. We are the product they are selling. We did not enter into any agreements with them. We did not give them our consent to use our personal information to create a multi billion dollar industry for themselves. They should not be permitted to charge us to find out what they are saying about us-- they owe us a lot more than just a free copy of "our" credit reports.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 03:01 pm Greg: I have not posted the details of my activities. Are you saying you're going to provide space to me on creditscoring.com free of charge to post details of my activities? I'm honored. Rbielak: I'd rather know that up front. If they only do business with Trans Union and I refuse to have my report pulled by them then that's fine. I do not want my credit reporting revenue to go to TUC. Barbara: Everyone complains that borrowers have to conform to FNMA standards even though no borrower ever has any direct dealings with Fannie Mae. Conventional lenders insist, wherever possible, that the loans they do conform to Fannie Mae standards. I am in the same position of authority to the credit repositories as Fannie Mae is to the borrowers. The only difference is I can't get an answer out of credit grantors as to which credit bureau they do business with. You try it sometime -- next time you get a pre-approved or a solicitation to apply try calling up the (800) number and asking which credit bureau they will be using. I can guarantee you that the person on the other end won't know the answer to that question. For now I am using the, admittedly imperfect, solution of looking at my list of inquiries on Equifax and applying with those companies that pulled my credit profile from Equifax in the past. People who care about dolphins figure out ways to avoid tuna providers that are not dolphin-safe. Why shouldn't I enjoy the same right to avoid credit information providers who aren't accuracy-oriented?
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 03:01 am Sean: No, I'm not offering you anything; you must be joking. There are any number of free web space services available. Why don't you use one of them?
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 06:33 am Greg: Yes, I was being facetious when I "misinterpreted" your question as an offer of space. I have no real desire to publish my efforts. I doubt they would be of much interest to anyone but myself. Not to say I don't have great passions about the credit and scoring issue. I care deeply about credit accuracy (my own) and I care deeply about (my own) FICO scores too. I feel deeply that everyone should be able to get low-cost financing and I am doing my part in this great struggle to liberate mankind from high interest rates by seeking to get myself some low-cost financing. And I plan to use this low-cost financing to buy lots of income-producing real estate and manage it for a living. I am firmly convinced that sizeable real estate holdings can be effectively managed from a party with lots of booze and great looking chicks too. I'm doing my part for the future of humanity by pushing the envelope in this fashion. As for my opinions on reforming the credit industry -- sure I have them. But when all is said and done I have no great plan for humanity. All I really have is the firm belief that people should do what they want to do unless it hurts someone else (and that should be clear and provable harm... flying a Confederate flag in some obscure down-south state doesn't count). You see, I am a little smarter than all the great reformers on here because I know something they don't. The most important thing I know is that I don't have all the answers and that no one (except maybe God) does. And so you see I'm part of the millions of deeply uncommitted inactivists endlessly not marching on Washington to demand they furnish solutions. I'm not infatuated with a government that massacres its own citizens in Waco, TX because they dared to have a strange religion and lots of guns. Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns. I'm religious; I own guns and I eat nuts. Am I next? I seem to recall that in 1938 one solitary government in Europe reared its head and killed 67 million people between 1938 and 1945. The only lesson anyone seems to be trying to transmit out of this is that 6 million of those that died were Jews. That still proves my point -- out of control governments have already killed more Jews than credit scoring ever will. Government is a health hazard. Government contains impure ingredients -- as anybody who's looked at Congress can tell you. I think we can say government practices deceptive advertising. My feelings in a nutshell: government should be against the law. Term limits aren't enough. I'd like everyone to consider serious jailtime. I plan to be considering the same thing sometime later today at a party with lots of booze and great looking chicks.
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 08:39 am Sean: Yes, I was being facetious when I "misinterpreted" your question as an offer of space. I have no real desire to publish my efforts. I doubt they would be of much interest to anyone but myself. My site and forums, which will be open to all opinions (even if I don't agree with them), welcomes any information or experiences that can help others in dealing with thier credit issues. If you'd like space (not just comments in the forums), feel free to request it. credit.bielak.com. It's brand new and looking for good content. It's open to everybody. Just visit and ask.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |