@jamie123 wrote:
@Momof5 wrote:
Existentialist wrote:Pardon my indulgence once more OP (a few final thoughts to share)
But first... (targeted response)
I cant really concern myself with what one 'chooses' to believe while making off-handed remarks on unrelated posts - what I know is this...
@Anonymous it possible to be addicted to app'ing for credit? Well, clearly 'anything' is possible... but nonetheless whether one chooses to acknowledge or agree with my assessment matters not - as the possibility of such is still.... remote @ best (given that the threshold in meeting the burden of proof goes beyond the simple 'act' of excessive app'ing - so that the ? then becomes how else does one truly discern 'addiction'?).
Engaging in linear type thinking can often impair objectivity.
Just bcuz someone SAYS they are addicted doesnt mean that they are. And just bcuz someone THINKS they may be, also doesnt mean that they are.
*And for that matter, sorry to inform but Google... isnt always accurate - try Googling the Civil War for instance, as some still believe that war was predicated on states rights.... so if one is more inclined to believe what they 'choose' to, well.... U follow where this is going*
I'll reiterate what I stated in my previous thread: ppl tend to throw out terms without considering the implications or appropriate applications thereof. And again, I know addictive behaviors. Unless anyone is willing to engage in a discussion interpreting the underlying causes of such, I wont be entertaining generalized speculation (or off-handed comments) to the contrary.
However lets say for the sake of argument that every person herein who stated they were addicted, actually was (as unlikely as that is mind U) - how would that in any way negate or diminish the general idea put forth which was..... this isnt the forum to resolve addictions? Attempting to discredit one (minor) point doesnt detract from the signature theme that was being promulgated (ergo: linear thinking).
If one believes otherwise (and they are certainly entitled to do so) then I'm fine agreeing to disagree esp. since I've previously laid out the foundation for MY reasoning and as such find little purpose in revisiting the point. I can respect well reasoned opposing points of view when presented logically but not blind slights proffered in unrelated posts - thanx anyway.
And honestly.... the acknowledgement of a 'genuine' app-addiction would merely strengthen my position - not weaken it.
I believe the majority herein have legitimate concerns and are forthcoming in their desire for improving their understanding of the credit game. However occassionally.....
There are those claiming to be addicted or those supposedly seeking advice for nonexistent problems, those of ill-will seeking to manipulate the system and subsequently undermine (or attempt to) the integrity of the forum under the guise of establishing better credit, and other disingenuous reasons....
That said, please consider this: If help is what one is truly committed to extending to others herein; exactly how is that possible if there is never any thought given n2 determining the veracity of someone's situation?
No response required - merely food for thought.
Moving on.For the benefit of us aging folks, would you please post in a larger font? Your posts are extremely difficult to read for the age-enhanced visually impaired. Thanks!
I think that Existentialist is an optometrist and he is trying to drum up business to pay his credit card debt off! I mean really, he made my eyes bleed!
Hey, what can I say? I'm looking out for the general masses. It is what it is (LOL).
