If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materialsincreasing
On 1/31/2016 8:02 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 04:24:54 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-01-31 09:25:56 +0000, "J. Clarke" said: In article 2016013014581534441-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, says... On 2016-01-30 22:37:03 +0000, nospam said: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a camera. Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what you meant here. If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it. not always. In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual registration. You're assuming that one wants to register the car in question. Correct. If you choose to have a non-operating vehicle your registration is $10/year. If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your investment. It's prudent but not mandatory. Agreed. If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to require insurance. ...but if you use nospam's mortgage lender you can drop the insurance whenever you choose. ;-) And live in the car. Or your mother's basement. -- PeterN |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materials increasing
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment. maybe your lender did, but not mine. I said the mortgage holder *may* require it. The fact that yours didn't doesn't mean my statement is wrong. then why are you arguing? i brought it up because you claimed i'm lying, which i can assure you, i am not. Your assurance means nothing. insurance was *always* a separate payment, directly to the insurance company. it was never included in the mortgage payment. So you did have insurance. I thought you said you didn't. It was probably required and your insurer provided proof to the mortgage company. i said it was cancelled after the loan was granted without any effect to the loan. do try to keep up before spewing. nobody said anything. nobody threatened foreclosure or immediate payoff or anything else. the monthly payments were made on time and the bank was happy. edge case or not, it proves that it is possible, and it's not a mobile home financed by a disreputable bank either. more of your bull****. So you are a slum landlord or a liar. neither. nothing more than insults because you know you're wrong and can't admit Wrong about what? that canceling insurance after the loan is granted causes problems. in my case, it did not. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materials increasing
On 2016-01-31 16:13:37 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:
In article 2016013104245461042-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, says... On 2016-01-31 09:25:56 +0000, "J. Clarke" said: In article 2016013014581534441-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, says... On 2016-01-30 22:37:03 +0000, nospam said: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a camera. Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what you meant here. If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it. not always. In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual registration. You're assuming that one wants to register the car in question. Correct. If you choose to have a non-operating vehicle your registration is $10/year. How about if you have a vehicle that operates just fine but you never take it off private property except on a trailer? Is it going to be operated on public roads or State recreation areas, or Federal property such as National Forests or Wildlife Refuges? There is an exception in California for "Off Highway Vehicles" (OHV) which have to have Cal OHV registration, but that is not a free ride. Bi-Annual OHV license & registration is $52. Depending on vehicle and use type they are issued a Red or Green tag. A green plate allows an OHV to operate on public lands all year. A red plate is assigned to motorcycles and ATVs model year 2003 and newer that do not meet the emission standards established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). An OHV does not meet the emission standards if the vehicle identification number (VIN) has a "3" or a "C" in the eight position. For the red OHV license plate riding schedule and additional information, visit California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation website. At places such as the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area there are strict controls. For example: " The OVH Area: Post 2 is one mile south on the beach from Pier Avenue and marks the beginning of the OHV area. All OHVs must be transported to this point before off-loading. Fenced and signed areas are closed to vehicular use either because the property beyond is private or because the area contains sensitive plant and animal life." "All OHVs must be registered through the Department of Motor Vehicles and display a current green or red sticker. Funds generated from OHV registration are used for acquisition, development, and operation of OHV areas." Then you can go out and play in the sand like a crazy dude! https://db.tt/HvpK1vXi If it is a vehicle only used at sanctioned races on controlled race circuits, and moved between events on a trailer, then you can skip the registration. If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your investment. It's prudent but not mandatory. Agreed. If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to require insurance. ...but if you use nospam's mortgage lender you can drop the insurance whenever you choose. ;-) I would like to know who that lender is--if they'll lend to nospam they'll lend ot anybody. Ask nospam. I am sure he would be more than happy to give you that information, and he will probably demand a finder's fee from the lender. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materials increasing
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: So you did have insurance. I thought you said you didn't. It was probably required and your insurer provided proof to the mortgage company. i said it was cancelled after the loan was granted without any effect to the loan. Sure, you can cancel with one insurer, but the bank holding the mortgage will insist on you obtaining insurance somewhere else. It may take them some time to catch up with you, but they will. they didn't 'catch up with me'. they didn't have a problem with it, something you refuse to acknowledge. edge case or not, it proves that it is possible, and it's not a mobile home financed by a disreputable bank either. more of your bull****. So you are a slum landlord or a liar. neither. Both, then. Your story is so fishy that I doubt if anyone is accepting it. i don't give a **** what you or anyone else believes. you're going to twist, lie and argue no matter what i say. nothing more than insults because you know you're wrong and can't admit Wrong about what? that canceling insurance after the loan is granted causes problems. in my case, it did not. So you couldn't pay the premium and they canceled the policy? I wouldn't brag about that here. So you managed to scrape together the premium for another carrier before the bank noticed took action. more of your lies, twists and insults. where did i say i couldn't afford it or that it was cancelled for nonpayment? that's something *you* came up with because you can't accept being wrong. *i* chose to cancel it because it was not worth it. the risk of loss was low. You have weaseled, though. nope. i told you my experience. You haven't said how long you were without coverage. Typical. nobody asked and i don't need to. suffice it to say it was measured in years, not days or months. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materials increasing
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:32:16 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Tony Cooper Sure, you can cancel with one insurer, but the bank holding the mortgage will insist on you obtaining insurance somewhere else. It may take them some time to catch up with you, but they will. they didn't 'catch up with me'. they didn't have a problem with it, something you refuse to acknowledge. Was this a condo? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materialsincreasing
On 1/31/2016 12:04 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper wrote: The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment. maybe your lender did, but not mine. I said the mortgage holder *may* require it. The fact that yours didn't doesn't mean my statement is wrong. then why are you arguing? i brought it up because you claimed i'm lying, which i can assure you, i am not. Your assurance means nothing. insurance was *always* a separate payment, directly to the insurance company. it was never included in the mortgage payment. So you did have insurance. I thought you said you didn't. It was probably required and your insurer provided proof to the mortgage company. i said it was cancelled after the loan was granted without any effect to the loan. do try to keep up before spewing. nobody said anything. nobody threatened foreclosure or immediate payoff or anything else. the monthly payments were made on time and the bank was happy. edge case or not, it proves that it is possible, and it's not a mobile home financed by a disreputable bank either. more of your bull****. So you are a slum landlord or a liar. neither. nothing more than insults because you know you're wrong and can't admit Wrong about what? that canceling insurance after the loan is granted causes problems. in my case, it did not. Your financing institution screwed up. -- PeterN |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materials increasing
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:53:43 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote: On 30 Jan 2016 12:22:17 GMT, Sandman wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: RichA: Commodities, metals, everything that uses energy for production has FALLEN in price thanks to dropping demand and much lower fuel costs. Nikon is full of s--- and is simply trying to rape existing customers because they aren't getting enough NEW customers. In 2000, insurance companies in Canada tried raising rates 100% b hiccup. The insurers tried raising rates because they lost money in the stock market so they tried to make it back using their near monopolistic positions in the Canadian market to rip-off insurances users. Same thing with Nikon. You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a camera. Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what you meant here. If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it. There is no requirement at all to buy a camera, so comparing insurance rate increases to camera cost increases is nonsensical. The point is that it's a legitimate complaint about insurance rates because it affects most people. Complaining about Nikon prices is not a legitimate contention. Price increases by Nikon affect only those who choose to buy a new Nikon and do not affect people who already own a Nikon. Who requires me to have insurance on my house? I chose to do so, but there is no mortgage on the property, I could let the insurance lapse if I so chose. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materials increasing
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:54:20 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: ...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan. and can be cancelled after the loan is granted... Granted? Don't you mean repaid? no. i mean granted. a lender may want insurance on a property for which they're loaning money, but after that, it's possible to cancel the insurance and not cause problems. That is absolutely incorrect for any bank or mortgage firm that I've ever heard of. The mortgage holder will require that the homeowner insurance carrier notify them if there is a change. If your coverage lapses, the carrier will notify the mortgage holder. If you change carriers, the new carrier will notify the mortgage holder. then you haven't heard of all of them. no surprise there. this isn't the first time you've pretended to know everything. The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment. i've seen taxes included in the monthly payments but not insurance premiums. Loans in California used to come with payments listed as PITI. Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance. Mine was, long ago. If you allow the homeowner's insurance to lapse, the mortgage contract will usually contain a clause that allows them to demand full payment of the remaining balance owed. usually = not always. you're confirming what i said, yet you argue anyway. that's ****ed up. BTW: Do you own a home clear, or are you making mortgage payments? ...or are you renting? what does that have to do with anything? this isn't about me. Because it's suspected that you live in Mommy's basement and don't know about such things. more of your insults. it's all you can do when you know you're on weak ground. You want to weasel out of this as you usually do when wrong? Tell us you were thinking a private financing by an individual as in "rent-to-own" or "owner financing". It'll be a lie, but it's a weasel you can use. i'm not wrong and i have the documents to prove it. i own a house and a rental property, the latter of which did not have property insurance for a period of time for reasons that are not important and the bank did not say a thing. nothing at all. all they cared about was that the mortgage payments were made on time, which they were. so yes, insurance *can* be cancelled without causing problems. i'm sure you'll keep on arguing anyway. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon cuts build quality on D800 replacement, raises price $300. | Sandman | Digital Photography | 4 | June 14th 14 10:32 PM |
Nikon did it again, increasing the price of replacement lensby $1000 | Rob | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | March 10th 13 01:25 AM |
Nikon's upcoming micro 4/3rds system raises fascinating question | Neil Harrington[_3_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 25 | November 2nd 09 12:20 PM |
B&H raises prices to negate Canon rebate | DJB | Digital SLR Cameras | 37 | May 25th 07 06:17 PM |
Increasing Crop Size on Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED | David Gintz | Digital Photography | 7 | May 1st 05 08:47 AM |