Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Based on what you posted earlier, you did not go somewhere else or she wouldn't have been stuck with an ARM whose rate increased dramatically and forced her into foreclosure.

Once again, you are making assumptions without the proper knowledge.  Where did I say that my sister-in-law went into foreclosure?  I said she lived in the forclosure capitol of the country, and that I had relatives that lost thir homes, but I never said she was one of them.  But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way here.

Quote:
And I stand by my statement about a reputable lender.  I am very well connected in the mortgage broker industry and know what is and isn't reputable.  The only reason for a broker to do what you described is because they were getting a kickback for "pushing" ARMs.

You may be well connected in the morgage broker industry in your area, but I doubt you are well connected out here in California.  I am, however, willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I know quite a few lenders out here, because of my business, give me your name and I will see if they have ever heard of you. 

Quote:
Oh goody, Dannae another of my favorite topics. I refer to it as economic slavery. Now for my fun, and this will cause controversy WARNING, WARNING, DANGER WILL ROBINSON. Skip

Quote:
Instead of arguing the issues of the discussion, divert the conversation with irrelevancies.

Quote:
Whether it was your sister-in-law is beside the point.  Whether any mortgage broker in California knows me or not is also irrelevant.

Quote:
What is relevant is that any broker who "forces" someone into an ARM instead of a conventional loan with equal payments is irreputable.  Anyone who allows themselves to be forced to take an ARM under those circumstances and subsequently goes into foreclosure, needs to take personal responsibility instead of trying to blame the lender or the government or some other person or entity.  No one else is responsible for a person's personal financial decisions except for the person making them.

Quote:
Like you did?  Can you say "illegal immigrants"?   

Quote:
You claimed you were 'well connected' as some sort of proof that you were right and I was wrong.  I gave you first hand experience, you countered with the expertise of those you are 'well connected' with.  In that context, it is quite relevant as it speaks to your credibility.  In addition, it helps explain why you are placing more blame on the borrower instead of the people who made these risky loans..but thanks for trying to tell me what you believe should and shouldn't be relevant. 

Quote:
Nice try at twisting the facts, yet again.  I never tried to blame the lender.  I never said that the person who took the ARM went into foreclosure.

Quote:
A lot of this could have been avoided had the mortgage companies decided not to adjust mortgages.  I know a lot of people who have lost their homes.  Heck, my sister-in-law lives in the foreclosure capitol of the country.  Most of those people would have been able to keep their homes, had the monthly payment not doubled.

Quote:
I simply countered your blanket genarlization, that all the people who took out an ARM did so in order to buy more house than they could afford.

Quote:
That statement, along with most of your other generalizations on this subjet, simply wasn't true.

Quote:
How to Win Arguments Online - A Flamer's Guide!


A good argument is an artform. The cut and thrust of well-conceived and cleverly constructed points and counter-points can be both uplifting and insightful. An insightful argument can open the mind and feed the wits.

As a writer, I love how words communicate very complex ideas and enjoy the mental dexterity of formulating a detailed response in a debate. There is something noble about a properly conducted discussion or argument that stretches word power and the wits.

Yet, online the art of the argument has devolved into nothing more than a playground scrap. Words are twisted, meanings distorted and meaningful debate is lost amid flame wars and the essential rules of online beatdowns.

So what are the rules to the online quarrel? How should you behave if you want to take your place as a flaming forum squabbler? What wisdom and social behaviours have I learned from years of internet disputes and tiffs?
Seven Tips for Arguing Online
1. Don’t address the points

Don’t think for one moment that an online argument is about finding a resolution or point of agreement. It is a smack down, pure and simple. If you don’t want to be the one on the chatroom mat with the ignominy of losing to Batman495, don’t make the mistake of actually engaging any of the main points of the debate.

If your opponent is being particularly logical by listing clearly articulated points that are difficult to refute, you have no option but to avoid those points altogether and make up some other ones of your own. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just taken the argument on a completely bizarre tangent, as long as you don’t fall into your opponent’s trap of actually addressing his points. He’s probably cleverer than you are so bamboozle him with out there statements that focus on all the wrong elements of the dispute.
2. Never follow and read the links your opponent offers up as evidence

This is a no-brainer. If your opponent drops some links into his post to refer you to some conclusive proof, the last thing you want to do it read that. It’s a trap! The longer you can avoid seeing the evidence, the longer you can hang onto your argument. Your opponent will protest that Britney Spears isn’t really dating Tom Cruise, and offer you links to prove it, but you must stick to your ground. You don’t have to read anything you don’t want to. Reality is what you say it is, so don’t infect your argument with his so-called ‘facts’.
3. Offer analogies that make no sense

Real debaters love to drop analogies into their arguments to illustrate a point. One way to put them off guard is to use your own. But just make sure your analogies don’t actually make sense – the more confusing the better.

If you actually don’t know what an analogy is because you always fell asleep in english class, even better. Pretend you do and make up any old rubbish. It’ll really annoy him.

Another trick is to take your opponent’s analogy and deliberately misinterpret it as an insulting attack while missing his point entirely.

“Did you just call me a pregnant elephant? I take offense at that!”

Then you can feign outrage, attempt to claim the moral high-ground and start characterising your opponent as a name-caller to all your friends on messenger, turning the online community against him.
4. Try to mix in controversial topics to destabilise your opponent.

Doesn’t matter how trivial the argument is – the color of Superman’s underpants, the price of bread in Guatamala, the time of day – if you can work in a reference to the Holocaust or the search for WMD in Iraq or Scientology, you stand a chance of wrong-footing your opponent.

“There are people who don’t believe in the Holocaust too. Should we lock them up as well?”

“No, I don’t see what…”

“Oh, you’re an apologist for the Nazis now. Like I’d listen to anything you have to say!”
5. Move the goal posts

Every now and then, your opponent may actually look as if he is winning the argument. If he writes a long, detailed post with clear points backed by well known evidence, and everyone else on the forum can see that he’s just blown you out of the water, you need to change your strategy.

If you feel you’re about to lose the argument, ditch defending yourself altogether. Accuse your opponent of over reacting to a trivial issue. Makes his long highly researched post seem silly. Try to win the forum or the chat room over by pretending to be the calm guy who just wants everyone to get along and characterizing your opponent as the one taking everything way too seriously. I mean who puts that much thought and research into a bulletin post anyway. This method works even if it was you who started the debate with a call of ‘Bring it on fatboy!”
6. Have the last word

As mentioned at the beginning, winning an online stoush is not about convincing the opponent to agree with a point of view. It is about having the last word. The one who stops posting responses first is the loser.

If your opponent decides to end the debate by ‘agreeing to disagree’, it is a trap. Remember Chamberlain and Hitler at Munich – appeasement leads to war. If he offers to shake hands and move on, come back with an attack. Find some point from early on in the debate and dredge it up. Twist his willingness to move on into an admission of failure. Whatever you do, don’t let him finish with the last word – you’re so close to winning the whole battle!

Often it is at this point that your opponent may just leave the thread never to return. This means you won. You can tell everyone else that he didn’t come back because he couldn’t answer your arguments. Your friends will think you’re a genius and clever and will ask you to lead them.
7. If all else fails…

Play the man not the ball. Don’t answer any of his points, but just call his entire argument ‘moronic’ without giving a shred of evidence why. If you repeatedly describe your opponent and his arguments in language that implies stupidity or simplicity, the others in the room will assume you know more and will begin to agree with you.

You might not think this technique works. But if it didn’t, why would so many online flamers insist on using this technique every day? Exactly.
Let Battle Commence…

Quote:
Not that it matters ...
Or does it?

This is a story from the Norwegian newspaper VG, the biggest newspaper in the country, from today's edition. Not that these things matter in today's dog-eat-dog world, but I found it quite touching, and I want to share.

Clarification for the literally minded: I do think these things matter, but I'm sure many will say that they don't. Anecdotal evidence, just a sappy human interest story, bla bla. Whatever. I think that this is a story that some may be interested in hearing. If you're not interested, cork it. I've translated the story into English and am posting it here. The original, in Norwegian, is here.

I'll be cross-posting this to the BookCrossing forum, since I'm sure there are some members there who will appreciate reading it.

I'm sorry about the annoyingly sappy language - this is a speculative tabloid so that's just how all their articles are.

Quote:
Mary lacked money to fly home to Norway – he saved her love

ÅSGÅRDSTRAND (VG): Mary was a newlywed and ready to move to Norway, but was stopped at the airport because she didn’t have enough money for the trip. Then a stranger turned up and paid for her.

Mary Menth Andersen was 31 years old at the time and had just married Norwegian Dag Andersen. She was looking forward to starting a new life in Åsgårdstrand in Vestfold with him. But first she had to get all of her belongings across to Norway. The date was November 2nd, 1988.

At the airport in Miami things were hectic as usual, with long lines at the check-in counters. When it was finally Mary’s turn and she had placed her luggage on the baggage line, she got the message that would crush her bubbling feeling of happiness.

-You’ll have to pay a 103 dollar surcharge if you want to bring both those suitcases to Norway, the man behind the counter said.

Mary had no money. Her new husband had travelled ahead of her to Norway, and she had no one else to call.

-I was completely desperate and tried to think which of my things I could manage without. But I had already made such a careful selection of my most prized possessions, says Mary.

Although she explained the situation to the man behind the counter, he showed no signs of mercy.

-I started to cry, tears were pouring down my face and I had no idea what to do. Then I heard a gentle and friendly voice behind me saying, That’s OK, I’ll pay for her.

Mary turned around to see a tall man whom she had never seen before.

-He had a gentle and kind voice that was still firm and decisive. The first thing I thought was, Who is this man?

Although this happened 20 years ago, Mary still remembers the authority that radiated from the man.

-He was nicely dressed, fashionably dressed with brown leather shoes, a cotton shirt open at the throat and khaki pants, says Mary.

She was thrilled to be able to bring both her suitcases to Norway and assured the stranger that he would get his money back. The man wrote his name and address on a piece of paper that he gave to Mary. She thanked him repeatedly. When she finally walked off towards the security checkpoint, he waved goodbye to her.

The piece of paper said ‘Barack Obama’ and his address in Kansas, which is the state where his mother comes from. Mary carried the slip of paper around in her wallet for years, before it was thrown out.

-He was my knight in shining armor, says Mary, smiling.

She paid the 103 dollars back to Obama the day after she arrived in Norway. At that time he had just finished his job as a poorly paid community worker in Chicago, and had started his law studies at prestigious Harvard university.

In the spring of 2006 Mary’s parents had heard that Obama was considering a run for president, but that he had still not decided. They chose to write a letter in which they told him that he would receive their votes. At the same time, they thanked Obama for helping their daughter 18 years earlier.

In a letter to Mary’s parents dated May 4th, 2006 and stamped ‘United States Senate, Washington DC’, Barack Obama writes:

"I want to thank you for the lovely things you wrote about me and for reminding me of what happened at Miami airport. I’m happy I could help back then, and I’m delighted to hear that your daughter is happy in Norway. Please send her my best wishes. Sincerely, Barack Obama, United States senator."

The parents sent the letter on to Mary.

This week VG met her and her husband in the café that she runs with her friend Lisbeth Tollefsrud in Åsgårdstrand.

-It’s amazing to think that the man who helped me 20 years ago may now become the next US president, says Mary delightedly.

She has already voted for Obama. She recently donated 100 dollars to his campaign. She often tells the story from Miami airport, both when race issues are raised and when the conversation turns to the presidential elections.

-I sincerely hope the Americans will see reason and understand that Obama means change, says Mary.

This is not a big or important story. But it is a nice story and if one is voting for a person, and not just for a political platform, it might be interesting to hear it. Somehow I don't see this story being covered in American media much, so let's count this as one blogger's contribution to the news coverage of the 2008 election. :-)

Quote:
How convenient of her to have lost the paper with name and address on it!

Call me a skeptic!