Message For Teaboy

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Sorry if i am upsetting you teaboy all i am doing is contesting your views, i thought that this was what a forum like this was about(not your views in particular of course)

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Yes its for healthy debate Davyb, but how can we debate something if you don't back up what you state with case law and legislation in order for it to be debated properly, based on the case law and/or legislation you use to back up what you say. Am more than open to do that, but am not open to continue an arguement where all we do is go round and round in cicles repeating what has already been argued as that will have no ending (unless we just agree to disagree) due to the lack of supporting evidence from your side.

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

I am unsure what you mean by this, the supporting evidence is the legislation, and the way it has always been interpreted by those who understand it.

Do you want me to copy and paste chinks of the CCA on here for you. Much of what you argue is incorrect would not have case law evidence either for or against, it is "trite law" common knowledge.

D

[michael]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Responding to posts on internet is forums is not harassment. Disagreeing with someone is not harassment.

You seem to think that merely by demanding that someone stop responding to your posts, that if they don't do so, that constitutes harassment.

As for assassinating your character and reputation, seems to me your doing a pretty good job all by yourself

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

I do not wish to be the cause of any trouble so I will withdraw from this discussion at this point

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

I am unsure what you mean by this, the supporting evidence is the legislation, and the way it has always been interpreted by those who understand it.

Do you want me to copy and paste chinks of the CCA on here for you. Much of what you argue is incorrect would not have case law evidence either for or against, it is "trite law" common knowledge. I don't see how trite law applies here when it is common knowledge that when a person in contract repudiates the contract they are not entitled to be placed back in the position they were in prior to the contract, as they have entered it but failed to honour their part of the contract. When a creditor sells the account to a third party of the back of an Invalid DN, they have not honoured their part of the contract (which as it is regulated under the act then they must honour and comply with said law) as they have done so in non complience with section 87(1) in default cases. Yes section 87(1) prevents them from terminating the agreement lawfully if the DN is invalid, but it does not prevent them unlawfully terminating which is what they have done when they sell it on off the back of an Invalid DN, as the creditor is no longer entitled to remedy the invalid DN by reissuing one that is valid, as they are no longer a party to the agreement and therefore do not have any rights under it. As you know, only the original creditor may issue a DN.

As i said, nothing the the CCA allows for creditors to not issue a DN under a fixed term agreement in default cases just because the loan duration period has passed. If it did, then all fixed term loan creditors would simply wait for the loan period to past rather than go through the expense of issue a DN to all those the Default not to mention the expense of storing copies of them, and employing people to manage their document librarys.

D

Responding to posts on internet is forums is not harassment. Disagreeing with someone is not harassment.

That depends of the nature of the response, which in my view was becoming harassing. Just because you did not deem it as such does not mean it is not.

You seem to think that merely by demanding that someone stop responding to your posts, that if they don't do so, that constitutes harassment.

But i also set out my reasoning as to why i viewed as harassing, such as twisting my words to make it look like i said something i had not. Not backing up your arguments with case law or legislation and deflecting from it instead in order to attempt to stain my character and repudation by changing to subject to what its my own legal theory when i am perfectly entitled to publish my theories whether you agree with it or not. So you merely used your disagreement of my theory, which i myself made clear had not been tested in high court, to open question my knowledge and understanding of the law, purely to undermine my character and repudation on this forum. I see no other reason as to why you would being my theory into the equation if it was not to deliberately undermine my character and repudation and divert from the real argument. Its also know as mental psychology tactics, as you clearly know others are reading your post as well as me and are trying to therefore undermine their own ability to come to their own opinion on the real subject of the argument, by questioning me on other issues not related to the actual arguement on whether their is a need for a DN on fixed term agreements where the loan period has passed, or not!

You can not claim its not harassment, just because you deem your actions to not be. As all that matters is whether i feel it has become harassment and if i feel i am being harassed - Your statement that you would be basically following my posts (e.g. stalking me on this forum) was unacceptable, as one its not your place to do so, as you are not site admin, and if the admin are not happy with my advice then it is for them to correct me not you. Not only that but it is a form of conduct that amounts to harassment itself.

As for assassinating your character and reputation, seems to me your doing a pretty good job all by yourself

I beg to differ - see what i put above.

I do not wish to be the cause of any trouble so I will withdraw from this discussion at this point

D

I also agree to withdraw too at this point. I also suggest we just just agree to disagree.

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Very childish behavior in my opinion

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Very childish behavior in my opinion

D

What exactly do you mean by that precisely? I hope your not referring to myself!

[leclerc]

Re: Message For Teaboy

I have reported this thread because it is becoming silly. Normally when arguments get moved off of someone else's thread, they die down and slowly but surely vanish into the ether. This one has not and so I have asked admin if they could politely bang both your heads together and move on.

Ta muchly.

[Guest]

Re: Message For Teaboy

I have reported this thread because it is becoming silly. Normally when arguments get moved off of someone else's thread, they die down and slowly but surely vanish into the ether. This one has not and so I have asked admin if they could politely bang both your heads together and move on.

Ta muchly.

It had already closed as far as i was concerned.

Thanks anyway

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Agreed we had both already agreed to withdraw so the argument was closed.