Amex/Mischcon V Me

[Blondie40]

..........And you were savvy enough to challenge them and be preprared to defend on the basis of a dogdy DN!

 

Brilliant!!

 

I was only savvy enough to challenge them because of what I learnt from CAG

[rhodium78]

EDIT: Actually...it's not worth the hassle... I will delete my own post!

Edited July 2, 2010 by rhodium78

[Monty2007]

I never denied the success... and it is down to a individuals who help each other out. That is admirable, what isn't, is the mob mentality that pervades here with accusations and defamation of character. I understand that people feel "safer" on the internet, it doesn't mean that you can insult someone hiding behind your nick because you wouldn't do so in real life.

 

So without getting dragged in further into this nonsense, I will see if my efforts can be better placed elsewhere.

 

Ps. Yawning because of lack of intellectual stimulation...

 

Well Rh we could have an intellectual debate, only none of my degrees are in law, though I am shocked that some of your fellow lawyers simply lack any intellect or attention to detail whatsoever. Having said that a few of the Oxford lawyers I knew signed on for chemistry (easier entry) and then transferred to law............. claiming they had made the wrong choice?! So they knew a few tactics, even in their pre-university days.....

 

People come to CAG when they are usually at the end of the road, literally desperate. I remember my own situation, not able to answer the phone, door or open the mail. Literally sh*t scared with wife and new baby and a stack of debts....... what did I do wrong....... had a loan and credit cards and was made redundant. Not able to get a job for six months, never been in debt then treated like a criminal. Fortunately I found CAG and some excellent people who are generours and care about other people. I have been so surprised by the majority of kind people on this site.

 

So, you see why you have received such a hostile reception. There are many talented people on CAG who could have an interesting legal debate with you, but frankly the legal precedent and arguments are well established and your attempts to confuse and put doubt in people's minds is wrong.

[Martel]

Had, Magda, Monty, Cym, Rhia, Blondie,

Thank you all for your input.

 

Other posts are corrosive and non constructive grandstanding - a lot of negative, sarcastic energy that isn’t helpful, that doesn’t produce any useful advice. They are destructive rather than constructive.

 

My turn to yawn, bored by the faux provocation and the use of the word ‘hassle'. And by the waste of time.

[Monty2007]

Had, Magda, Monty, Cym, Rhia, Blondie,

Thank you all for your input.

 

Other posts are corrosive and non constructive grandstanding - a lot of negative, sarcastic energy that isn’t helpful, that doesn’t produce any useful advice. They are destructive rather than constructive.

 

My turn to yawn, bored by the faux provocation and the use of the word ‘hassle'. And by the waste of time.

 

Sorry Martel, my only motive was to rid your thread of a Troll. I appreciate that you need constructive input into your case.

[Martel]

Sorry Martel, my only motive was to rid your thread of a Troll. I appreciate that you need constructive input into your case.

 

Monty, absolutely NOT directed at you. Except the thank you part, MX

[rhodium78]

Sorry Martel, my only motive was to rid your thread of a Troll. I appreciate that you need constructive input into your case.

 

And you did that admirably... wow... how you are going to do that...?? I love the accusation of a troll. So my hero, how will you get rid of a troll on this thread! Please tell us... By the way, thanks for telling me your background, I am honoured that you feel the need to qualify yourself to me, I don't feel so obliged as you hide behind the facade of a nick to make yourself feel more grandiose.

[rhodium78]

I have flagged this thread for site attention as the accusations could be misconstrued as defamation of character so don't hide behind a forum when slinging insults.

[Monty2007]

And you did that admirably... wow... how you are going to do that...?? I love the accusation of a troll. So my hero, how will you get rid of a troll on this thread! Please tell us... By the way, thanks for telling me your background, I am honoured that you feel the need to qualify yourself to me, I don't feel so obliged as you hide behind the facade of a nick to make yourself feel more grandiose.

 

What is a nick?

[MARTIN3030]

Ok I have been alerted to come and take a look (actually its a reported post so was first on the team to respond)

 

I see there are some seasoned and experienced Caggers here.

 

The OP is getting ****** off by the off topic stuff thats degenerating from the main issues.

 

Lets try to focus on those instead of the indifferences.

I think all sides have had a chance to respond to some of the criticisms and to edit or unapprove them IMHO would change little.

From what I read the indifferences have been posted with tact but neverthless distract from the main issues.

 

So even score and no winners or losers-lets leave it at that.

 

 

Carry on with assistance to the OP.

[MARTIN3030]

And hello BRW;)

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Martin3030!

 

Good to see you, how's it hanging, dude?

 

I'm watching yet another Troll infestation with interest. There seems to be quite an outbreak of them. This is one of many Threads being compromised at the moment, but the OP and many astute Caggers have clocked what is going on.

 

Advice to everyone is to ignore the Troll and concentrate on the OP's problem. This has been a deliberate distraction designed to deprive someone in need of help, from help.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[MARTIN3030]

Yes agreed.

 

Site team is on top but will always rely on others to help out and report-we cant be everywhere.

You can be sure that we have the tools to act and check out trolls and deep cover peeps-although it can sometimes take longer than we would like.

I dont need to tell you that.

You have my contact details for any suss.

[rhodium78]

Ok... there seems to be a witch hunt going on... with all due respect, I don't understand the wild accusations? I guess because someone does not agree with the doctrine of CAG, they must be working for the other side? Right? Not sure how to best answer that question so I leave it for the troll spotters to answer.

[MARTIN3030]

Well you should have some idea by now who is onside.

The way to deal with trolls is firstly to make them aware that you know they are here,and secondly to ignore them.

 

You asked me (the team ) to mass delete posts from xxxx

I took the decision to leave-because it highlights the awareness of the distractions.

99.9% of peeps here are onside-remember that !!

[Martel]

Well you should have some idea by now who is onside.

The way to deal with trolls is firstly to make them aware that you know they are here,and secondly to ignore them.

 

You asked me (the team ) to mass delete posts from xxxx

I took the decision to leave-because it highlights the awareness of the distractions.

99.9% of peeps here are onside-remember that !!

 

 

Martin, thanks for the sanity, MXX

[rhodium78]

I brought this to your attention and asked you to mass delete posts because it was not serving any purpose, and was distracting as you pointed out.

 

It must be getting late and without taking the post more OT... if everyone was arguing with me in this thread and as you said 99.9% of people are on side, that implies that I am the troll which I find derogatory when all I did was state the obvious about arrears and mentioned some case law, albeit, I could have been more diplomatic??? Me no comprende what happened here at all. I guess by your answer that it is implied that I am a troll and I work for a DCA or Bank and spread misinformation?

[Monty2007]

And you did that admirably... wow... how you are going to do that...?? I love the accusation of a troll. So my hero, how will you get rid of a troll on this thread! Please tell us... By the way, thanks for telling me your background, I am honoured that you feel the need to qualify yourself to me, I don't feel so obliged as you hide behind the facade of a nick to make yourself feel more grandiose.

 

So what is a nick?

[rhodium78]

LOL! You are not letting it go are you? You are dogged I must admit that... I will let someone else enlighten you in case I am misconstrued in spreading misinformation.

[elsinore]

LOL! You are not letting it go are you? You are dogged I must admit that... I will let someone else enlighten you in case I am misconstrued in spreading misinformation.

 

 

LOL! You are not letting it go are you? You are dogged I must admit that...

 

Els

[rhodium78]

Thanks for the insight... it was like looking in a mirror... lol

[MARTIN3030]

I brought this to your attention and asked you to mass delete posts because it was not serving any purpose, and was distracting as you pointed out.

 

It must be getting late and without taking the post more OT... if everyone was arguing with me in this thread and as you said 99.9% of people are on side, that implies that I am the troll which I find derogatory when all I did was state the obvious about arrears and mentioned some case law, albeit, I could have been more diplomatic??? Me no comprende what happened here at all. I guess by your answer that it is implied that I am a troll and I work for a DCA or Bank and spread misinformation?

 

 

By your own admission you state that you could have been more diplomatic.

The difference between being onside or un-diplomatic can tip scales.

If you find that to be derogatory then I disagree-I would say it is understandable to some.

What you may consider obvious to you-may appear very different to others.

I am not here to take sides-but am trusted to make judgements.

I dont always get things right but do my best.

 

If you are trying to dispute the allegations of being called a troll-you need to convince all those contributing to this thread-and not me.

 

There are some very experienced members here-in fact I would say who are suitably able and desrving to be on the site team themselves.

 

Given that assumption and reasoning-I am confident that some of the points aired are done so with good intention.

 

That does not give automatic flaming rights-you have been given chances and opps to respond-and those responses will be allowed.

 

What you need to consider are those members who have been here for a long time and why they should be posting negatives.

 

In a nutshell that should answer your questions.

Edited July 3, 2010 by MARTIN3030

[rhodium78]

If you find that to be derogatory then I disagree-I would say it is understandable to some.

 

So resorting to name calling is allowed if the person doing it feels justified in some sort of way. So if I insulted you just based on this post and made remarks about you avoiding the question, not willing to take a stand on something and just weak willed, it would be ok because it understandable for other people who also read your post and saw you avoiding the question. That was just an example, and was only to prove a point so you get my gist.

 

What you may consider obvious to you-may appear very different to others.

I am not here to take sides-but am trusted to make judgements.

I dont always get things right but do my best.

 

Take your word for it as I have not had any dealings with you so can't confirm or deny the above but just based on your post, I am not convinced.

 

If you are trying to dispute the allegations of being called a troll-you need to convince all those contributing to this thread-and not me.

 

That is ludicrous, 1.) people post here and help because of altruism on the main (discounting the sofa solicitors and the ones on a vendetta), not because of any type of recompense so it is a bit rich to ask them to also justify themselves, 2.) an allegation based on someone disagreeing with the status quo is akin to a protester in a repressive regime who doesn't go along with the regime and is then imprisoned for holding that thought, 3.) this forum is peer reviewed, therefore people should be able to criticise and put across a point of view as only a small minority are actually qualified to give advice and are indemnified as such, 4.) it is a bit much to try and convince the same people who did not understand the same point in the first place, 5.) the person who posted the information is not taken at face value and their past posts scrutinised before the defamation of character occurs.

 

So essentially, anyone here would be totally excused to start labelling people as debt avoiders, shysters, charlatans, and swindlers. I mean, if you, or I or even some of the site mods or experienced caggers hold that thought about certain OPs and state so, then the OPs must try and convince us that they are not. I don't agree with that at all and the ramifications of that would be insulting to everyone. Sounds like a kangaroo court and seeing that everyone complains of the Court system being an old boy's club, with secret handshakes and nods and winks, why is it then being emulated here but to the worst degree.

 

Therte are some very experienced members here-in fact I would say who are suitably able and desrving to be on the site team themselves.

 

Given that assumption and reasoning-I am confident that some of the points aired are done so with good intention.

 

That does not give automatic flaming rights-you have been given chances and opps to respond-and those responses will be allowed.

 

I am not complaining about the deletion of the posts, I frankly don't care about that. So when confronted with an argument about a point of law, it is ok to respond back with you are a DCA or Creditor or agent provocateur/saboteur because this goes against what we believe. That sounds like religion, not a forum. Also, experienced on a forum, with all due respect does not make you a lawyer, so how can an experienced member who did not even look at the points raised or the cases, or anything like that make a call on someone they don't even know. In addition, my point is well established and I am not re-iterating anything new here, there are other "experienced" caggers on this forum who have the same belief and if that is not enough, case law states so. Just a small adage that I feel compelled to pass on to you as I feel it would stand you in good stead for the future: experience does not make one wise, it is only wisdom when you come out of an experience with something more than you went in, and are able to utilise it.

 

What you need to consider are those members who have been here for a long time and why they should be posting negatives.

 

In a nutshell that should answer your questions.

 

Ummm... no. What they need to consider because as you implied, they are experienced caggers so should know better compared to us newbies. The burden of proof is on them, not me or anyone else here because a positive allegation has to be made, not one based on hearsay, a hunch or just mob mentality.

 

So basically, being here a long time gives them automatic rights to disregard the point of law and post negatives based on their assumptions instead of the history of the person posting it, the arguments that the person made, or even their active participation in CAG. So with experience, one would expect the person slandering to have actually done some research first, compiled some evidence or a portfolio, etc, but that is not what has happened. Also, the "running insult" syndrome as I have now termed it where someone makes a snide comment, and effectively runs by not addressing anything regarding it is not conducive to discussion or debate as you have stated. I personally think the person concerned though experienced on a forum and may be older than most, for which you gave "props" to, has shown all the intellect of an arthropod and vipers eat arthropods.

 

Yes, you have answered my question, and it is a shame that myths propagate here. I just hope that none of the people who really do need help do not get stung with the misinformation being propagated when faced with Counsel with a strong background in Commercial Banking and Finance. And as regards experience, we have all seen that it doesn't count for much here as failing in judgements occur, whether you have 1 post or 10 in the power of 10 posts.

 

Have a good night.

[DonkeyB]

If any of you seriously believe rhodium to be a troll, then you are seriously misguided - no, you are 100% wrong. I know.

 

If people sometimes don't like the posts he makes - and which he makes with obvious legal knowledge and experience, as well as transparency - then that is a different matter, and the points should be debated. That's what a forum embodies.

 

Some people need to calm down here and maybe issue private apologies.

 

My contribution the the forum is limited by my ability, but for whatever my input is worth, I will be removing it permanently if people continue to label rhodium a troll, a viper or whatever.

 

It is a totally shameful, unfounded and wholly wrong accusation. A simple read of his posts across the forum would tell you that.

[vjohn82]

I've been alerted to this thread, mainly because the OP clearly needs assistance, but also because of this witch-hunt.

 

We all need to understand that there are opposing viewpoints and that a counter argument is not personal and not designed to shake one's faith in their case. In fact if someone like rhodium78 has gone out of his way to point out a valid flaw in the reasoning of a person proceeding with a case as a LIP then surely it is better for it to be brought out into the open here rather than be stuffed in the courtroom?

 

I won't judge the manner of the comments because I understand feelings and tempers can run high in the heat of the moment; however, the accusation that rhodium78 is a troll does not sit well with me considering the wealth of assistance they have provided to others on the forum.

 

I do think Martin has made a mistake in not removing posts that are "off topic"; this is stated within the t's and c's upon signing up. A mere accusation of trolling, and the banter in between, is not a reason for keeping a number of posts on the OP's thread that detract from the assistance that they need. I would urge Martin to reconsider this at his earliest convenience.

 

I'm here for the sharing of knowledge; if I disagree I say my peace and then move on. I probably won't meet any of you off this forum and we will probably never meet on opposite sides in the courtroom so arguing is pithy and a waste of my time (I have learned that lesson from a thread a few months ago).

 

I'm not perfect, neither is anyone else. But I see a genuine reason for a retraction of the allegations made towards rhodium78, though an apology would be just as good.

 

I've said what I needed to say; I'm with DB though in that a genuine poster has been maligned who has helped a considerable number of people and, while we have disagreed on some things, that does not mean that I do not respect their opinion.

 

I too will leave the forum if this situation is not rectified in some way. Collectively me and DB have thousands of posts and numerable successes (especially HFO)... if we go it only makes CAG weaker.

 

Martin, this really needs strong modding in line with the forum rules and I would respectfully request this thread goes back on topic ASAP.

 

Thanks.

 

VJ