|
|
Re: HILARIOUS attempt at validation--now what?
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by Keyser Soze
(152.163.253.37) on July 22, 2003 at 20:18:36:
In Reply to: HILARIOUS attempt at validation--now what? posted by EuterpeThelo on July 22, 2003 at 10:20:47:
Hilarious indeed and a typical example of 'validation' as performed by those who believe themselves to be above the law, who think that rules are for others and not themselves, who make up their reality as they go along. The psychiatrists have clinical names for these individuals. Ted Bundy, Richard Speck, Eileen Wuornos come to mind as examples.
But we are all friends on this board, whether priest or disabled or heretic, whether we are housewife or working mom with three jobs, even if we are cops, firemen, postmen, doctors, Indian Chiefs, lunatics, the walking dead, all of us refer to these types as "collections professionals" for that is what they are.
Of course, they uphold the 'highest standards of the industry' as AssXXXX Acceptic Crap-o-ration's website so laughably mentions, albeit with a straight face.
Yup, that's good enough validation, ain't it? Sure, they done validated it real gud. Right, and we all just fell offa da turnip truck, or was it the bannanooz pushcart? I dunno, mebbe somebody help us out here.
Remember, failure to validate is a violation. Wollman et al as LadynRed points out are the letters to invoke. Also considered naughty is to validate by means of improper, defective, deficient form, as in your example.
Do you get the sense that before this is over these dumb clucks might end up owing you money? Cluck, cluck, cluck, Keyser Soze "Come along a baby, we got chicken in the barn,
whose barn, what barn, my barn."
c. 1962, Ernest Evans nee Chubby Checker,
"Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On"
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
