by Raymond » Thu Dec 25, 2008 06:39:13 PM
Sorry about the lack of an apology, Joe, but only an idiot would fall for that one. On your Dec.19, 2007 post, on thread # 881, you indicated you had completed settlement of 13 debts for 10 cents on the dollar but still had 4 or 5 to go. Presently, you claim to have 2 remaining so that must mean you've completed either 15 or 16.
Three days previously, on your Dec. 16, 2007 post, you told Monty that the settled debts were all credit cards and ranged between $3K and $11K and were 15 to 20 months old. Another early post indicates the total amount owing was $110K. But that couldn't have included the $24K debt because $11K was the previous maximum.
You left out the fact that your house was being repossessed, or at least you were forced to get rid of it. Furthermore, in subsequent posts you disclosed that you had no job and weren't planning on buying a decent car for quite some time time because of the RBC judgment and the risk of bailiff seizure. Last week, you proudly announced you settled another 24K RBC debt for $2400. Given the fact that it was only a week old, I assume that it was among the 4 you included.
Anyhow, it's obviously possible if, someone is completely devoid of assets and income OR a debt is stats barred, that a creditor might take 10%. However, if someone has a good job, a home, cottage or valuable vehicle and investments, then they could easily ring up $150K on their credit cards/loans and be secure in the knowledge their assets would be safe from seizure if they only paid 10%. Sure, their credit score would be bad for a few years but they would have already gotten the money from the cards anyway. How retarded would someone have to be to believe that? Unless you plan on being a vagrant or a complete loser for the next 10 to 20 years, there's no way a creditor would be stupid enough to settle a large debt for 10%.
As far as verification goes, you could have sent those "agreements" in on the back of a cigarrette package and Monty would have backed you. He didn't even bother including any amounts or creditor names. He's only interested in getting rid of what he perceives are useless arguments on his forum because he thinks it will cost him potential advertising revenue.
He won't support anyone who he figures is causing a problem. My criterion was different in that I don't get paid for anything; so giving people correct and accurate information is my only guideline. That's why when someone, like yourself, starts leading people astray with baloney, I call it for what it is. It's easy to see how the objective of telling the truth can be compromised by advertising revenue goals.
Ray
PS: And Richard, please stop kissing asses, especially those of hucksters; it's undignified and a very transparent compromise of integrity.