SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #121
Yes it is. It is in fact, textbook blaming the victim. Its like saying "if she hadn't dress like a tramp, she wouldn't have been raped"
Especially considering the fact the debt may not have even been valid!
Didn't you say in another thread that you do not trust corporations? The debt is disputed by the plaintiff - why do you assume he is wrong and the collection agency is right?
Seems to me you place unlimited trust in the corporation - or at least, collection agencies. "If he wasn't in debt to them, they wouldn't have called him at all" - apparently collection agencies NEVER call people that don't actually owe the debt they claim they owe - debt collection agencies are infallible according to you!
Which bit of my original comment of "I agree with the verdict" is too complex for you?
If you try really, really hard.... you might just eventually post one post that has facts and not your wild assumptions. Seriously, you're making yourself look really stupid.
Why do you assume the debt was valid?