Uncle Normies hollers again

Why you should never communicate with CREDITWRENCH

Next we will touch on the topic of CREDITWRENCH Bill Bauers use of certain tracking software, and the danger he poses to your precious family's personal security.


Uncle Normie got something half way right for once. He says that you should never communicate with CREDITWRENCH because CREDITWRENCH uses mailtracking software for the transmission of all sensitive material. That is because braying jackasses, debt collectors, debt collection attorneys and other persons with illegitimate interests just love to snoop on your communications. They are interested in doing so because CREDITWREENCH methods are so powerful that it is beating up on them badly and they want to find out all they can about CREDITWRENCH methods so they can devise ways and means to defeat it and render it useless to those who have rightful access to the material.

Uncle Normie wants to snoop on what CREDITWRENCH has to offer so he can spread lies and misinformation about CREDITWRENCH. It is obvious that UNCLE NORMIE is doing his level best to destroy CREDITWRENCH for whatever reason.

He got caught breaking his terms of service agreement with blogger.com and that will probably happen to him again. He got caught trying to snoop on CREDITWRENCH and the mail tracking software he is bitching about revealed his exact whereabouts and a lot more. That will aid Oklahoma authorities in his prosecution for violation of the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act. He is a wanted criminal.

Yes, your family's privacy is important and CREDITWRENCH takes every precaution to assure that all transactions and emails are protected and that known criminals and other thugs, thieves, hoodlums, pettifoggers and obfusicators do not gain access to it.

Uncle Normie got caught redhanded and now he is mad about that and trying to con you into believeing his trash. His days are numbered now.

He lost his blog but managed to con blogger into giving it back to him, He is a wanted criminal, he has been banned from numerous message forums for his antics and wants you to believe he is an expert. Yes, he is an expert con artist but like all criminals, he gets caught in his lies and whines and whimpers about it.

Beating a dead horse issue

Well, by some hook or crook Uncle Normie managed to con blogger.com into letting him have his bfog back on line again. So what? No biggie.

And then he continues to show his stupidity by writing an ebook about Title 46 of Oklahoma statutes in an attempt to prove me wrong. But in the process he missed the whole point of the issue and brays on endlessly making a mountain out of a molehill as usual.

What started it was that I stated that I would not be concerned about a judgment. And I would not no matter how much braying he does. I did not say that nobody else should or should not be concerned about a forclosure or an eviction. What I said was that I would not be concerned.

So because I stated I would not be concened he decides to write about some Oklahoma law. So what? Then he wants me to admit that I was wrong? Never mind that whether or not I would be concerned about something is not something that can be argued about.

Something like that is my decision to make and mine alone. Had I advised that no one need be concerned about a judgment then he would have every reason in the world to take me to task.

But for him to take me to task about what I would or would not be concerned about is preposterous.

I said I would not be concerned about a judgment and that meant regardless of whether or not a judgment was entered against me. When I ran into some hard luck and had my other two houses reposessed back in 1996 I was not worried about the judgment because I knew they could not collect one crying dime no matter what they did. The bank knew that too and they never even tried. Now they can't because the statute of limitations ran out on the judgment and they never bothered to renew it. Why would they renew it?
No reason to since both of us knew from the start that they could not enforce the judgment even if they tried.

But now I am supposed to admit that I was wrong?

I wasn't wrong, but making mountains out of molehills trying to prove a point that never existed in the first place is pretty stupid to say the least.

I never even said I knew anything about mortgage law in Oklahoma or anywhere else.
I don't have to know anything about mortgages or mortgage law or the law about repossession of houses to know whether or not I would be concerned about a foreclosure.

As usual, Normie is braying about nothing at all.