Vulgar voicemails force debt collector to pay $1.5 million

[manifold]

I'm talking about you making a big deal about the validity of the debt.

Can you follow a conversation at all or are you just a brain dead moron? It was CaliGirl who made an issue of the validity of the debt, proclaiming that the plaintiff would not have been harassed if he hadn't owed money, and claimed it as fact that his own actions lead to the harassment. So I countered her ignorant blame the victim attitude by pointing out this guy may very well have not owed any money at all.

You gave the impression that your support of the verdict was driven by the belief that the debt wasn't valid.

I only gave that impression to ignorant douchebags who can't follow a thread.

Translation: Tubby took CaliGirl's bait and made himself look like a jackass. And now he's throwing a tantrum for having it pointed out.

You win some, you lose some twatstick. And on this one you were gang-pwned. Take it like a man you big wuss.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm talking about you making a big deal about the validity of the debt.

Can you follow a conversation at all or are you just a brain dead moron? It was CaliGirl who made an issue of the validity of the debt, proclaiming that the plaintiff would not have been harassed if he hadn't owed money, and claimed it as fact that his own actions lead to the harassment. So I countered her ignorant blame the victim attitude by pointing out this guy may very well have not owed any money at all.

You gave the impression that your support of the verdict was driven by the belief that the debt wasn't valid.

I only gave that impression to ignorant douchebags who can't follow a thread.

Translation: Tubby took CaliGirl's bait and made himself look like a jackass. And now he's throwing a tantrum for having it pointed out.

You win some, you lose some twatstick. And on this one you were gang-pwned. Take it like a man you big wuss.

Congratulations on your utter stupidity.

 

[manifold]

Saving face when pwned technique #1: Call the other guy stupid.

But whatever, you can tell yourself whatever you need to to protect your fragile ego, matters not to me.

But can you at least go on record acknowledging that the behavior of the collection agent was deplorable regardless of the validity of the debt? Or is that too much to ask?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Saving face when pwned technique #1: Call the other guy stupid.

But whatever, you can tell yourself whatever you need to to protect your fragile ego, matters not to me.

But can you at least go on record acknowledging that the behavior of the collection agent was deplorable regardless of the validity of the debt? Or is that too much to ask?

I hate smurfs!

 

[manifold]

Saving face when pwned technique #1: Call the other guy stupid.

But whatever, you can tell yourself whatever you need to to protect your fragile ego, matters not to me.

But can you at least go on record acknowledging that the behavior of the collection agent was deplorable regardless of the validity of the debt? Or is that too much to ask?

I hate smurfs!

I'm glad you can laugh at yourself, it's a sign of maturity.

But you still haven't addressed the question. Was the validity of the debt relevant with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant? I say no. What say you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Saving face when pwned technique #1: Call the other guy stupid.

But whatever, you can tell yourself whatever you need to to protect your fragile ego, matters not to me.

But can you at least go on record acknowledging that the behavior of the collection agent was deplorable regardless of the validity of the debt? Or is that too much to ask?

I hate smurfs!

I'm glad you can laugh at yourself, it's a sign of maturity.

But you still haven't addressed the question. Was the validity of the debt relevant with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant? I say no. What say you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...llector-to-pay-1-5-million-2.html#post2363343

See the part where it says 'they violated the law' - and then shut the fuck up bitch

 

[manifold]

I hate smurfs!

I'm glad you can laugh at yourself, it's a sign of maturity.

But you still haven't addressed the question. Was the validity of the debt relevant with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant? I say no. What say you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...llector-to-pay-1-5-million-2.html#post2363343

See the part where it says 'they violated the law' - and then shut the fuck up bitch

It's a simple question. Was the validity of the debt relevant to the judgement?

yes or no? Come on tubby, I know you can do it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm glad you can laugh at yourself, it's a sign of maturity.

But you still haven't addressed the question. Was the validity of the debt relevant with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant? I say no. What say you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...llector-to-pay-1-5-million-2.html#post2363343

See the part where it says 'they violated the law' - and then shut the fuck up bitch

It's a simple question. Was the validity of the debt relevant to the judgement?

yes or no? Come on tubby, I know you can do it.

If you can't figure it out from the statement "They violated the law. They must pay" - then you are far dumber than I ever gave you credit for and are certainly worthy of being placed back on my ignore list.

 

[manifold]

It's a simple question tubby. Was the validity of the debt relevant to the verdict?

yes or no?

 

[Anguille]

Tubby, just say no. It will make mani feel like a big man.

 

[Dante]

What's ludicrous about it? The fact that 1.5 mil is enough to actually hurt the corporation in question?

hurting the corp would be a fine in a criminal case, not a reward in a civil case.

you're on my "Not too bright" list

Why do you think they are called PUNITIVE damages? And people/corporations have damages assigned against them to "hurt" them all the time.

sigh

the context is this case and the particular civil judgment.

'hurting the corp"

homework assignment: Punitive damages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you truly are clueless. of course there are punitive penalties in civil cases.

The greater harm here was not to the individual, unless you claim nasty phone messages which can be ignored or deleted, constitute being "egregiously insidious"

I apologize for not stating the obvious. I forgot idiots like you troll these boards.

 

[Dante]

Tubby, just say no. It will make mani feel like a big man.

---

Will IT?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/119552-manis-pond-grows-smaller-and-smaller-by-the-day.html#post2368667

 

[hvactec]

hurting the corp would be a fine in a criminal case, not a reward in a civil case.

you're on my "Not too bright" list

Why do you think they are called PUNITIVE damages? And people/corporations have damages assigned against them to "hurt" them all the time.

sigh

the context is this case and the particular civil judgment.

'hurting the corp"

homework assignment: Punitive damages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you truly are clueless. of course there are punitive penalties in civil cases.

The greater harm here was not to the individual, unless you claim nasty phone messages which can be ignored or deleted, constitute being "egregiously insidious"

I apologize for not stating the obvious. I forgot idiots like you troll these boards.

Dante why are you so nasty today, is it that time of the month.
Oh that's right your a GAY POET, what happened your Boyfriend did not come home last night....

 

[Nik]

Saving face when pwned technique #1: Call the other guy stupid.

But whatever, you can tell yourself whatever you need to to protect your fragile ego, matters not to me.

But can you at least go on record acknowledging that the behavior of the collection agent was deplorable regardless of the validity of the debt? Or is that too much to ask?

I hate smurfs!

I'm glad you can laugh at yourself, it's a sign of maturity.

But you still haven't addressed the question. Was the validity of the debt relevant with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant? I say no. What say you?

Are you really this stupid?

No. Its not. Which was the point when someone insisted that the individual who won the 1.5 mil judgment wasn't owed something since they were at fault for owing money. Maybe you missed it in all of your bullshit posturing but people have been talking about more than just the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

 

[Nik]

hurting the corp would be a fine in a criminal case, not a reward in a civil case.

you're on my "Not too bright" list

Why do you think they are called PUNITIVE damages? And people/corporations have damages assigned against them to "hurt" them all the time.

sigh

the context is this case and the particular civil judgment.

'hurting the corp"

homework assignment: Punitive damages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you truly are clueless. of course there are punitive penalties in civil cases.

The greater harm here was not to the individual, unless you claim nasty phone messages which can be ignored or deleted, constitute being "egregiously insidious"

I apologize for not stating the obvious. I forgot idiots like you troll these boards.

Thanks for essentially saying the same thing I was, but not being intelligent enough to realize that.