# Ah, the joys of bill collectors (long) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 4, 2002, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441 "2002-12-04T15:10:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/81 "2002-12-10T23:19:56Z")
**Ogre** I agree fully that my story was not the collectors problem. I never said it was. The point in telling the story was to hopefully get across that not all debtors are scumbags, an opinion that Debaser has stuck to strongly throughout this thread. I guess my story didn’t have strong enough proof as “I’m sure **you** don’t think you’re a scumbag” followed up with a smug reply of “you didn’t pay your bills.” As if it’s that simple. I guess I really _am_ a scumbag in his/her eyes. :rolleyes: No one is saying that a collections agent is supposed to sit there and listen to every story he/she is told. Some of us here are simply trying to say that sometimes it is more time efficiant, not to mention more decent, to work with the debtor, instead of abusing him/her. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/82 "2002-12-10T23:50:36Z")
**Ogre** wrote: > [@](#): > > I think you all are coming down unnecessarily hard on Debaser. He had a job to do, and by all accounts, he used every legal means available to get the job done. If he had done anything illegal or unethical, I could see roasting him, but he (apparently) has not. So he used “nearby messages.” So what? They’re legal. But you’ve only addressed half of your own criteria here. You set up your argument by saying that **Debaser** should only be roasted for doing something “illegal or unethical,” but you conclude only that what s/he did was legal. Where did the ethics go? Are you arguing that simply because something is legal, that therefore makes it ethical? I don’t recall anyone on this thread accusing **Debaser** of breaking the law; people were, however, addressing the more general ethical question of the methods used by debt collectors, and were contrasting their own ethical positions with that taken by **Debaser**. As with most ethical debates, the argument extended considerably beyond the narrow issue of legality. And on the matter of being able to generalize about all debtors, a key aspect of **Debaser** ’s defence of debt-collecting practices has been that the collectors do not have the time to listen to or, as **Ogre** puts it, “empathize with every story that he or she hears.” **Debaser** said: > [@](#): > > I would have demanded the balance in full be paid, and I wouldn’t listen to your story. Well, given this admission that the collector is not interested in, and doesn’t listen to, people’s personal stories, why is it then reasonable for that same collector to make value judgments about the debtors’ situations, in the way that **Debaser** was doing? If you refuse to collect individual tales of woe (which is your right), then all you have to go on are the impersonal records provided by the computer regarding loan defaults, overdue credit card payments, etc. And, as the experience of **lezlers** shows, this data can hide a story of considerable personal hardship and does not always indicate some sort of moral failing or deadbeat attitude. Note that my whole argument here does not rest on the issue of legality. I have no problem admitting that, providing the proper procedures have been followed by the creditor, the debtor does indeed have a legal obligation to pay the debt. But **Debaser** has spent this whole thread conflating this legal obligation with some sort of personal moral failing on the part of just about every single debtor. While i personally have ethical qualms about techniques such as calling the debtor’s neighbours, i concede that debt collectors have the legal right to use such tactics. But if debt collecting is simply, as **Ogre** asserts, “an honest job” (and i see no reason to disagree with this as a generalization), then why even the need for the sort of ill-informed moralizing displayed by **Debaser**? For **Debaser** , the whole experience sounds more like a crusade than a job. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/83 "2002-12-11T00:15:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bdgr \* > \*\*Also, under the aforementioned act, if you send a letter to him, stating that he is not to contact you further, he cannot do so. Personally, most collections people I have dealt with have been idiots…totally unaware of the laws they are supposed to follow, or hoping that you will be also. \*\* Right he is. Never call the scum, and don’t talk to them on the phone if they call (Say “I have disputed the charge” and hang up). Just write them a letter “disputing” the debt. Keep copies. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/84 "2002-12-11T00:40:11Z")
Wow **Mhendo** You said that better than I ever could. Kudos. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/85 "2002-12-11T01:53:17Z")
Alrighty. Well said, **mhendo** , even though do not at all agree. To begin with, I believe your “ethical” point to be invalid. Let’s first define what we mean by “ethical.” The concept is a complex one, but I believe I used it correctly and appropriately. I’ll dispense with quoting the entire [entry](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethical) at [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com), but the definitions found there can be reasonably divided into two broad concepts: social and professional ethics. You are arguing on the basis of social ethics. I believe this approach to be invalid because there can be no universal consensus on what constitutes social ethics in every case. Rudeness violates your code of ethics? OK, good enough, but that doesn’t apply to everyone. Using your neighbors and friends to try to find you for the purposes of getting a debt paid offends you? Fine, but I see no reason that should be a basis for calling the behavior unethical, or at least to the extent that that behavior should be forcibly stopped. After all, whose set of social ethics are we using? Hasidic Jews’? Alaskan Inuit’s? And don’t say “generally accepted American ethics,” because there is no such thing. Standards change geographically and over time. Professional ethics, are, of course, another matter. Professional ethics are generally well-regulated by law, thus putting them into the not-so-narrow purview of the legal system. This is the ethical system I mean, and it provides a basis (the law) from which to judge a person’s professional behavior. Thus, you may not like the tactics used, and you may lobby to have those tactics included in the list of unethical behaviors, but until that happens, you’re just pissing in the wind, so to speak. > [@](#): > > And on the matter of being able to generalize about all debtors, a key aspect of Debaser’s defence of debt-collecting practices has been that the collectors do not have the time to listen to or, as Ogre puts it, “empathize with every story that he or she hears.” Why do you assume that the only source of data on a debtor is their story? The debt collector has plenty of information from which to make his or her call: the person’s credit history, the list of debts, which debts are being paid and which are not. Seems to me that analysis of the patterns therein, while not perfect, is a perfectly reasonable basis for the debt collector’s actions. In fact, it would seem to me that such skills would be invaluable to a debt collector’s professional credentials. Obviously, **Sauron** ’s Mr. Coleman is either lacking those skills or is ignoring them, leading him to several clear-cut violations of law. Thus, his professional ethics have been compromised. **Debaser** , however, has said nothing to indicate that he is anything more than harsh…offensive, perhaps, but hardly unethical. > [@](#): > > Well, given this admission that the collector is not interested in, and doesn’t listen to, people’s personal stories, why is it then reasonable for that same collector to make value judgments about the debtors’ situations, in the way that Debaser was doing? Because he has more data from which to work than simply a person’s “story.” > [@](#): > > If you refuse to collect individual tales of woe (which is your right), then all you have to go on are the impersonal records provided by the computer regarding loan defaults, overdue credit card payments, etc. And, as the experience of lezlers shows, this data can hide a story of considerable personal hardship and does not always indicate some sort of moral failing or deadbeat attitude. Again, why should the creditor be penalized for something that happened to the debtor? The debtor signed a legal agreement, then did not fulfill the contract. Where’s the unethical behavior now? > [@](#): > > But Debaser has spent this whole thread conflating this legal obligation with some sort of personal moral failing on the part of just about every single debtor. Nope. “Most,” and “most, in my experience” do not, in any sense of any definition, mean “all” or “every single.” He was pretty clear on that. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/86 "2002-12-11T05:25:15Z")
**Ogre** wrote: > [@](#): > > I believe this approach to be invalid because there can be no universal consensus on what constitutes social ethics in every case.\*\* I see. So just because this is a subject on which there will not be any consensus, that means it cannot even be part of the discusssion? I realize that this is the BBQ Pit and not Great Debates, but i didn’t think there was any rule against coherent argument. I made quite clear in my last post, i thought, that i was well aware that there would not likely be any broad agreement, and that people were simply “contrasting their own ethical positions with that taken by **Debaser**.” > [@](#): > > You are arguing on the basis of social ethics. I believe this approach to be invalid because there can be no universal consensus on what constitutes social ethics in every case. Rudeness violates your code of ethics? OK, good enough, but that doesn’t apply to everyone. Using your neighbors and friends to try to find you for the purposes of getting a debt paid offends you? Fine, but I see no reason that should be a basis for calling the behavior unethical, or at least to the extent that that behavior should be forcibly stopped. After all, whose set of social ethics are we using? Hasidic Jews’? Alaskan Inuit’s? And don’t say “generally accepted American ethics,” because there is no such thing. Standards change geographically and over time. No, i felt no need to state specifically whose ethics we were using because, as i have just made clear _again_, i do not believe that any single set of ethics govern this society or any other. Exactly what basis _would_ you use for “calling the behavior unethical”? And your addition of “at least to the extent that that behavior should be forcibly stopped” to the end of that sentence is a non-sequitur, because as far as i can remember no-one on this thread has called for such a thing. I certainly have not. In your ultra-legalistic universe, all debate over any ethical question would be simply reduced to the determination of its legality. And, as i’ve pointed out at least once already, no-one on this thread has told **Debaser** that s/he was acting illegally, only that they believed that the type of tactics used by debt collectors was unethical, whether legal or not. Are you now going to assert that once something has been decided in law, then all ethical debate over that issue should cease? Try making that suggestion to folks on any side of the abortion debate, the gun debate, the death penalty debate, or the issue of taxation, and they will laugh in your face. > [@](#): > > Thus, you may not like the tactics used, and you may lobby to have those tactics included in the list of unethical behaviors, but until that happens, you’re just pissing in the wind, so to speak. Oh, i see, the fact that we are unable to effect any changes in the law by our debates on this board means that the debates are therefore useless? Surely the whole idea of forums (fora?) like SDMB is that they give people a chance to conduct debates that may be settled (or not) in law, but that still give rise to many ethical concerns. If the types of concern expressed in this thread, and in other threads on SDMB, are simply “pissing in the wind,” then why bother participating at all? > [@](#): > > Professional ethics, are, of course, another matter. Professional ethics are generally well-regulated by law, thus putting them into the not-so-narrow purview of the legal system. This is the ethical system I mean, and it provides a basis (the law) from which to judge a person’s professional behavior. Firstly, professional ethics are not always regulated by law. Many professions have codes of conduct that govern what is expected of their practitioners, but that are not supported by legal sanctions. And, rather than simply splitting ethics into the “social” and “professional” as you do in your post, i think it is actually more accurate to see professional ethics as a subset of the broader issue of social ethics. Surely professions establish their ethical codes at least partly by examining the moral standards and expectations of the society of which they form a part? If you want to reduce the discussion to dictionary definitions, the _Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_’s earliest definition of “ethical” states: > [@](#): > > 1. Of or pertaining to morality or the science of ethics; pertaining to morals. (early 17th century) The incorporation of professional ethics doesn’t come until the late 19th century, and even then comes _after_ the more general aspects: > [@](#): > > 1. In accordance with the principles of ethics; morally correct, honourable; conforming to the ethics of a profession etc. And, while i agree with you that the legal system (imperfectly) reflects the ethics of the society that it serves, nowhere does legality occur in the dictionary’s definition of the term. You also wrote: > [@](#): > > The debt collector has plenty of information from which to make his or her call: the person’s credit history, the list of debts, which debts are being paid and which are not. Seems to me that analysis of the patterns therein, while not perfect, is a perfectly reasonable basis for the debt collector’s actions. Again, you’re missing the point i was making. When referring to the importance of a debtor’s individual story, never made the assertion that the debt collector’s actions in collecting the debt should be bound by it. What i was arguing, and i thought this was fairly obvious, is that while the information that a debt collector has might tell much about what the person’s debt it and the mechanics of how it came about (failure to pay credit cards, etc.), they do not provide an adequate basis for the type of moral generalizations that **Debaser** was throwing around with so much abandon. > [@](#): > > Obviously, Sauron’s Mr. Coleman is either lacking those skills or is ignoring them, leading him to several clear-cut violations of law. Thus, his professional ethics have been compromised. Debaser, however, has said nothing to indicate that he is anything more than harsh…offensive, perhaps, but hardly unethical. Mr. Coleman’s breaking of the law is almost beside the point here (sorry, **Sauron** , i didn’t mean that as a jab at you), because just about everyone has conceded that he did violate the law. The issue at hand, and the one that you brought up in your earlier post, is **Debaser** ’s comments on this thread. And an examination of those comments have _nothing_ to do with whether **Debaser** has broken the law - clearly, we all concede that s/he has not. The debate was over **Debaser** attitude towards debtors, and whether it could be justified on the basis of the information s/he had at hand. And, as i said before, an admission that you refuce to listen to a person’s story does not form a very solid basis for making a moral judgement about that person. > [@](#): > > Because he has more data from which to work than simply a person’s “story.” OK. If you have experience in doing this type of work, maybe you can tell me _exactrly_ what type of information you have as a debt collector that allows you to make a moral judgement regarding the circumstances of that person’s fall into debt? > [@](#): > > Again, why should the creditor be penalized for something that happened to the debtor? The debtor signed a legal agreement, then did not fulfill the contract. I will quote _again_ what i said in my last post: > [@](#): > > Note that my whole argument here does not rest on the issue of legality. I have no problem admitting that, providing the proper procedures have been followed by the creditor, the debtor does indeed have a legal obligation to pay the debt. Is that clear enough for you? I have never once asserted that the creditor does not have the right to seek restitution. But we have been talking about debt collectors, and not about creditors. If my information is correct, a debt collector is hired by the creditor to collect the debt. Neither i nor anyone else, as far as i can recall, have made a single assertion contesting the rights of the creditor to its money. > [@](#): > > Nope. “Most,” and “most, in my experience” do not, in any sense of any definition, mean “all” or “every single.” He was pretty clear on that. Well, if you want to descend to that level of semantics, neither does “all” or “every single” mean “just about every single,” which is what i said. Maybe i overstated, but have a look at **Debaser** ’s first contribution to this thread, which says: > [@](#): > > One thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of people they are talking to are total scumbag deadbeat debtors. These people are suck fucksticks that have quarter million dollar credit card debts that can’t be bothered to declare bankrupcy or even answer a phone call about the subject. A subsequent post said: > [@](#): > > We now know that your neighbors are piece of shit debtors. Then > [@](#): > > Most debtors are scumbags. They don’t pay thier bills. When informed that s/he might be overgeneralizing, **Debaser** backed down to the extent of saying: > [@](#): > > Sauron, I was referring to debtors in general, not you. Well, that’s mighty big of you there, chief. Next came: > [@](#): > > These people don’t deserve to be treated nice. They owe the collector that is calling them money. They need to pay. If you give them a chance then they will tell you their sob story, doing anything they can to justify not paying. And then [quoteHowever, this is not what the vast majority of people in collections are. A typical account looks like: no mortgage, 10 charge cards: all cancelled for non payment. 10 retail cards: 8 cancelled for non payment. Car pmt that is the only thing getting paid. This guy, when I get him on the phone will find that I am very much an asshole to him. I don’t need to let this debtor have a word in. He needs to be told to pay, or that legal action will be taken against him.[/quote] Again, i have no trouble with trying to collect the debt, but knowing that someone has “no motgage, 10 charge cards: all cancelled for non-payment. 10 retail cards: 8 cancelled for non-payment” does not tell you _how_ they came to be in that situation. And maybe the fact that the car payment is being made might tell you that they need to get to their job if they are ever to have a hope of paying back all that money. Next pearl from **Debaser** : > [@](#): > > Most debtors with charged of credit card accounts are scumbags. I have talked to enough of them to make this determination. And then we get a direct admission: > [@](#): > > I am personally attacking debtors in this thread. This is after all the pit, and I felt like venting. And then concedes, apparently negating all previous posts: > [@](#): > > But, you know what, very few people (see: bankrupcy attorneys who are also debtors) actually choose not to pay thier bills when they have the money to. Most people who get into debt trouble have a story like yours. So, now maybe all debtors aren’t scumbags, and, if we believe this latest quote, those who don’t pay take this route because they don’t have the money. come to think of it, i think i’ll stop now because **Debaser** ’s quotes make for a more daming argument than i could ever make alone. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/87 "2002-12-11T05:50:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\*Right he is. Never call the scum, and don’t talk to them on the phone if they call (Say “I have disputed the charge” and hang up). Just write them a letter “disputing” the debt. Keep copies. \*\* You dont even have to dispute the claim, just send it to them in writing that you dont want them to contact you.(again, only for collection agencys, not the original debtor) ---
**Author:** ![super\_head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@super\_head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/super_head)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/88 "2002-12-11T06:48:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > Right he is. Never call the scum, and don’t talk to them on the phone if they call (Say “I have disputed the charge” and hang up). Just write them a letter “disputing” the debt. Keep copies. Or admit that you’ve got financial woes and problems and work out an amicable solution, rather than running away from the agreements you’ve made. And yes, I speak from some experience, both my own and that of our customers - when I get a call from collections for, say, medical bills not covered by our original shitty HMO, they tend to be happy to work out a payment plan for me. The right answer is not “I can’t pay.” - it’s “let’s work out a way for me to pay” - and in every situation it has been a workable solution. YMMV. As for my company’s customers, again - we work with them before the bill goes to collections. If it does go there, it pretty much means the customer has made it clear they have no intention of paying (perhaps by ignoring letters or phone calls, you see). If you act like a child, expect to be treated like a juvenile delinquent. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/89 "2002-12-11T07:03:36Z")
You call those damning arguments? His statements come down to this: “I collected debts. I was harsh about it. In my experience, most debtors are purposefully delinquent scumbags. I am attacking them in this Pit thread.” Perhaps on Planet Thin-Skin, these things equate to “unethical.” However, in the real world, that you’re offended by his behavior is entirely your own problem. Ah, **mhendo** , I had an enormously long, point-by-point refutational post all ready, but as I edited it, **super\_head** IM’ed me and said, “I think you’re talking around each other.” I believe he’s right. Here’s the crux of the argument, as I see it: **Debaser** did his job harshly and, apparently, well. I also believe that his “most debtors are scumbags” statements can be reasonably interpreted as “in my experience, most debtors are scumbags.” He even clarified his meaning a bit in his last post. That he used dirty (but legal) tricks on people who had already abdicated their financial responsibilities (for whatever reason,) failed to pay the debt when requested by the original creditor, and finally, failed to make reasonable arrangements with the creditor to make payments is not, in my mind, a breach of ethics at all. It is a perfectly acceptable last-ditch effort by the creditor to reclaim money they’re owed. I have no desire to quash debate, as you seem to think. See, that’s why I’m here arguing with you. You may have noticed. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/90 "2002-12-11T16:28:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ogre \* > \*\*You call those damning arguments? His statements come down to this: “I collected debts. I was harsh about it. In my experience, most debtors are purposefully delinquent scumbags. I am attacking them in this Pit thread.” > > Perhaps on Planet Thin-Skin, these things equate to “unethical.” However, in the real world, that you’re offended by his behavior is entirely your own problem. > > Ah, **mhendo** , I had an enormously long, point-by-point refutational post all ready, but as I edited it, **super\_head** IM’ed me and said, “I think you’re talking around each other.” > > I believe he’s right. > > Here’s the crux of the argument, as I see it: **Debaser** did his job harshly and, apparently, well. I also believe that his “most debtors are scumbags” statements can be reasonably interpreted as “in my experience, most debtors are scumbags.” He even clarified his meaning a bit in his last post. That he used dirty (but legal) tricks on people who had already abdicated their financial responsibilities (for whatever reason,) failed to pay the debt when requested by the original creditor, and finally, failed to make reasonable arrangements with the creditor to make payments is not, in my mind, a breach of ethics at all. It is a perfectly acceptable last-ditch effort by the creditor to reclaim money they’re owed. > > I have no desire to quash debate, as you seem to think. See, that’s why I’m here arguing with you. You may have noticed. \*\* OK, my final word on the subject is this: I believe that you seem to see a single issue, where i see two. For me, the first issue being debated on this thread was the ethicality of the tactics used by debts collectors. Note again that this is a debate separate from their legality. So, for example, while everyone concedes that calling a debtor’s neighbor is legal, there are some who believe it to be outside the realm of ethical behavior. This issue of ethicality is a valid debate, regardless of the legal status of the tactics. The second issue was **Debaser** ’s generalizations about debtors, which is, at least for me, totally separate from his/her tactics as a debt collector. I concede s/he has the right to call debtor’s neighbors, but i also claim the right to call him/her an asshole for making what i believe to be unfounded and ill-informed assertions regarding the character and intentions of the majority of debtors. As far as i can tell, the only generalizations you can really make about these debtors without hearing the details of their personal circumstances are these: 1. They entered into an agreement (or, perhaps more likely, more than one agreement) to pay. 2. They have not paid. 3. They still owe the money, and the creditor has the right to ask them for it. It’s interesting, given your allusion to my “thin skin,” that your own skin was so thin that your specific reason for joining this thread was apparently to defend **Debaser** from all the people criticizing his/her attitude. You say, regarding **Debaser** , > [@](#): > > However, in the real world, that you’re offended by his behavior is entirely your own problem. Well, surely then the fact that you appear offended by those who criticized **Debaser** is entirely _your_ own problem? You continually, and this happens again in your last post, confuse the issue of the ethics of debt-collecting, on the one hand, and the generalized abuse hurled at most debtors by **Debaser** on the other. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/91 "2002-12-11T16:47:15Z")
Errrr…in what way is defending an apparently unpopular poster at the risk of getting flamed being “thin-skinned?” And I confused nothing at all. I do not believe **Debaser** violated his professional ethics, based on what he said, nor do I believe he violated any other ethical standard by his choice of words or abusive language. Of course, that depends on whether his “most debtors are scumbags” really can be translated as “in my experience, most debtors are scumbags.” If not, I’ll concede the point. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/92 "2002-12-11T20:51:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by super\_head \* > \*\*Or admit that you’ve got financial woes and problems and work out an amicable solution, rather than running away from the agreements you’ve made. > > \*\* Like the realtors say “location, location…”… but in this case- “Context, context, context”. The Op was discussing being dunned for a bill he didn’t legally owe. If you are bening dunned for LEGIT bills- yes, try & work it out (but only with the orginal creditor, once it gets to a collection agency, it’s too late anyway). BUT, again, if you have at least a reasonable postition that you do not owe that bill, that you have a reasonable dispute- don’t talk to bill collectors on the phone. Do it by mail. Make it clear that the amount in question is “disputed”. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/93 "2002-12-13T01:16:19Z")
I have been busy with work lately, so I haven’t been about the boards. Gotta pay the bills, you know. Yuk, Yuk. I don’t want to keep this thing going forever. **mhendo** , it would help you to notice that the top of the thread where it says “BBQ pit”, not “Great Debates”. I have never seen anyone insist on such clarity in other rants. If somebody states: “Tailgaters suck!” People don’t usually jump in and say: “Have you seen every tailgater?” “Or done a statistical analysis of tailgating?” "You must retract and say instead “In my experience, tailgaters that I have seen suck”. That wouldn’t be any fun at all would it? That being said: I will concede that my “most debtors are scumbags” mantra can be translated as “in my experience, most debtors are scumbags.” **mhendo** , I never “backed down” to any extrent by clarifying I was not attacking **Sauron**. Read my first post in the thread. I never attacked him at any time. I just hijacked the thread a little to vent at scumbag debtors in general. > [@](#): > > ## And then we get a direct admission: quote: > > ## I am personally attacking debtors in this thread. This is after all the pit, and I felt like venting. > > ## And then concedes, apparently negating all previous posts: quote: > > ## But, you know what, very few people (see: bankrupcy attorneys who are also debtors) actually choose not to pay thier bills when they have the money to. Most people who get into debt trouble have a story like yours. Huh? Direct admission of what? And what am I conceeding? I was just letting **lezlers** know that every debtor has some bullshit reason for not paying the bill. “My boyfriend dumped me” isn’t a good one. > [@](#): > > So, now maybe all debtors aren’t scumbags, and, if we believe this latest quote, those who don’t pay take this route because they don’t have the money. Of course they don’t have the money! I never claimed that the debtors have a thousand dollars in their back pocket while ignoring the accounts that they owe. It is precisely because they don’t have the money to pay that makes them scumbags. Sorry, **lezlers** , but nothing in your story came close to justifying not paying what you owe. Collectors aren’t just “wasting a lot of time and energy bullying someone who does not have the means to pay you in full.” Like I have said in this thread, you make a firm demand from every person and you only get a small percentage (like 1%) to actually pay. If you don’t make demands from everyone then no one will pay. This is not done to feel morally superior, or just to be an asshole. It’s the most effective way of collecting the account. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with this. I have seen many collectors try the “nice guy” approach. They last about two weeks. It’s simply not an effective way to get people to pay the bill. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/94 "2002-12-13T01:50:09Z")
Oops. That first “mhendo” in that post should not be there. He isn’t insisting on such clarity. I meant all posters in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/95 "2002-12-13T14:53:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > I was just letting **lezlers** know that every debtor has some bullshit reason for not paying the bill. And this is the crux of my disagreement with you. You continue to lump those of us with legitimate gripes into the “all debtor” category. Let’s say, for a moment, that you were attempting to collect the AT&T debt from me. You called me, we talked about it, and hung up. Your co-worker says “So, is that Sauron guy gonna pay?” And you say “No, he’s got some bullshit story about not actually owing the money.” Am I a debtor in your eyes? Most certainly. You’re trying to collect from me; I have an account that’s been placed in collections. By definition, I’m a debtor. Right? Difference is, in my case my “bullshit reason” is the TRUTH. By your logic, either I pay my bill or I concoct a bullshit reason for not doing so. You’re not considering the third category of “debtors” – those who are being hassled **through no fault of their own**. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/96 "2002-12-13T16:27:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > [B} > > I was just letting **lezlers** know that every debtor has some bullshit reason for not paying the bill. “My boyfriend dumped me” isn’t a good one. > > Of course they don’t have the money! I never claimed that the debtors have a thousand dollars in their back pocket while ignoring the accounts that they owe. It is precisely because they don’t have the money to pay that makes them scumbags. > > Sorry, **lezlers** , but nothing in your story came close to justifying not paying what you owe. \*\* Okay, I’ve been trying to stay level-headed through this whole thing, but I can’t resist anymore. \*\* Fuck you Debaser\*\* You are one of the most judgemental, holier than thou, garbage spewing pieces of crap I’ve had the displeasure of sharing discourse with on this board. How the \*\* fuck \*\* is someone supposed to pay back money they \* physically don’t have???\* Huh? Next time you pay a visit to the money tree, I’d **love** to come along. Please, I would **LOVE** for you to tell me how I was supposed to pay back the money I didn’t have. Please tell me, I’m _dying_ to know how all of that heartache, anger and fear could have been avoided so easily, since you seem convinced it could have. I was already working MORE than full time. And going to school. Please, please tell me. And for your information, my boyfriend did not dump me. I, in fact, dumped him because I saw that there was NO way I could possibly get out of debt if I was forced to continue to support both of us. Read it again Einstein. So I was homeless for a month, because he wouldn’t leave. Of course I still ended up paying the remaining term on our lease (thank goodness someone let me rent from them with no deposit or credit check and thank goodness I scored a great paying job that allowed me to pay back everything in a timely manner) because they couldn’t find the piece of shit after he took off. But I’d really, really love to hear how I could have just “paid what I owed” while still keeping a roof over my head. Because I wasn’t able to then. Note: I **did** pay everything off you loathsome assmonkey, just not all at the **SAME TIME** When each collections asshole _demanded_ it. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/97 "2002-12-13T16:31:14Z")
And you know what else fucknugget? Karma’s a bitch and I REALLY hope you get yours. I’ll be praying to the money gods to see you penniless and alone, with a whole herd of asshole collections people all up in your ass. Asshole ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/98 "2002-12-13T17:51:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > I don’t want to keep this thing going forever. mhendo, it would help you to notice that the top of the thread where it says “BBQ pit”, not “Great Debates”. I have never seen anyone insist on such clarity in other rants. > > If somebody states: “Tailgaters suck!” > > People don’t usually jump in and say: “Have you seen every tailgater?” “Or done a statistical analysis of tailgating?” "You must retract and say instead “In my experience, tailgaters that I have seen suck”. > > That wouldn’t be any fun at all would it? > > … > > Of course they don’t have the money! I never claimed that the debtors have a thousand dollars in their back pocket while ignoring the accounts that they owe. **It is precisely because they don’t have the money to pay that makes them scumbags.** And, once again, with the sentence i have bolded you confirm everything that’s been said about you on this thread. You cannot possibly have any idea of what circumstances led to the debtors’ lack of money, yet you continue to use this simplistic criterion as sufficient grounds for calling someone a scumbag. And your tailgater analogy is specious. All tailgaters, as far as i can tell, have direct control over how close they choose to be to the car in front. And, if accident rates are any indication, tailgating in general is a dangerous activity no matter who does it. Debtors, on the other hand, may find themselves unable to pay due to circumstances beyond their control, such as the sudden and unexpected loss of a job, the loss of a spouse or partner, a downturn in the economy, etc. Note i have not once said that all debtors have an excuse. No doubt some of them _are_ in fact “scumbags” who just kept spending and spending until their profligacy caught up with them. And we could have a whole new debate on exactly how much responsibility creditor companies have for all the unpaid debt out there, given that it is impossible to turn around in this country without someone handing you a credit card application or 0.9% APR or “no payments until 2004” or “no money down.” Combine that with the millions of ads and news reports that insist that it is our patriotic duty as Americans to spendspendspendspendspend, and the most suprising thing to me is that there are not more outstanding accounts requiring the services of debt collectors. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/99 "2002-12-13T18:21:52Z")
> [@](#): > > It is precisely because they don’t have the money to pay that makes them scumbags. Sorry, **mhendo** , **Sauron** , and **lezlers**. I thought **Debaser** was misunderstood in this thread. I was wrong. Nice sweeping generalization there. ---
**Author:** ![NailBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecae2f/32.png) [@NailBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NailBunny)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441/100 "2002-12-13T18:32:50Z")
The OP sounds a great deal like what my husband and I are experiencing right now. We belonged to a gym back in Eugene; when we joined initially, we were told that our membership would run for a year and after that we would have to renew if we wished to continue it. We were not entirely happy with this gym for a number of reasons, and about half-way through our year spoke with an employee to see if it would be possible to terminate our membership early. He said it would not, that we should just let it run out at the end of the year. So we continued to make our monthly payments (they had it set up to where we were paying this other company who handled their accounts for them, so we could not just make payments directly to the gym), and when the year was up, we stopped going and stopped paying, thinking that was that. The next month we received an overdue notice for our last month’s payment. We spoke with the gym and told them that we were under the impression that we could just let the year run out and not be liable for any more payments to the company. We had not, after all, been going to the gym at any time in the last month. They told us that we were actually supposed to write a letter to the company in question telling them we wished to terminate our membership. We did this immediately. Next month: we get _another_ bill, now for two months’ outstanding. Once again, we go through the whole rigamarole, this time getting the company on the phone and explaining to them that we are NOT attending the gym, we don’t want to go to the gym, we are no longer members, we’re not paying for a membership we haven’t used for two months. They tell us that we’re pretty much screwed as far as the two month’s fees we’ve accumulated, but they will terminate our membership from this point on. Soon after that, we move to another state. We get another letter, now for three months’ membership fees and late fees. Pretty furious at this point, we get these people on the phone again and this time get a really nice lady who, after hearing our story, assures us that if we just fax her a piece of mail with our new address on it proving we’ve indeed moved out of state and no longer have access to the gym, she’ll remove all our charges. Hooray! We do this that very day, and feel very satisfied indeed. Another bill arrives, for FOUR MONTHS. We’re talking like two hundred dollars now. We call this lady back, she tells us she didn’t get the fax. We fax it again, despite the fact that it costs us like five dollars every time we fax something to them. Another bill arrives. We call her back and ask to speak to her supervisor, who tells us that not only did they not get any of our faxes, but a piece of mail wouldn’t be sufficient anyway. They need a BANK STATEMENT now. So Mr. Bunny faxes them their damn bank statement, after blacking out all of our account information. They don’t get it. He faxes it AGAIN, they finally get it, but tell him that it’s no good because the account information is blacked out. He tells them something to the effect of “What colour is the sky in your world, where you think that I will gladly fax you my bank statement with my account number on it?” Good point, they say, and assure us that the matter is closed. Couple weeks ago…wait for it…ANOTHER BILL ARRIVES!!! I am at a total loss what to do now. :mad: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ah-the-joys-of-bill-collectors-long/140441.md?page=6)