Print

[lazymanandmoney]

I find it interesting that he hasn't posted what Rateladder has said about it.

You know he's weighed in by now.

I see no comments on RateLadder's site or in the comments of my own post.  If you are that curious about RateLadder's thoughts, ask him.  While you are at it, please ask Prosper Andrew what his thoughts are as well.

[lazymanandmoney]

You can always recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity

Why Am I Doing this?
I want to see how Prosper reacts to such a proposal. They’ve blurred the line by adding the social element to the loan marketplace. I want to blur it more. I want Prosper to look at endorsements and say, “Is this really the right model? Can we make it better?” Innovation occurs when a potential problem is exposed.

Beautiful, simple, and true.

[lazymanandmoney]

If there’s a bonus of a financial reward for both parties, why not take advantage of that?

You listed this as a reason for your action. You did this at least partly to make money in the event that prosper did not take action against you. The structure of your post indicates this.

Backpedal all you want.

Why Am I Doing this?
If you think it sounds dirty, you are right. I’m putting on a grey hat in this case. I want to see how Prosper reacts to such a proposal. They’ve blurred the line by adding the social element to the loan marketplace. I want to blur it more. I want Prosper to look at endorsements and say, “Is this really the right model? Can we make it better?” Innovation occurs when  a potential problem is exposed. Perhaps “buying an endorsement” doesn’t qualify as a problem in Prosper’s eyes. If that’s the case, that’s worth knowing as well.

Lastly, I think it’s a great way to demonstrate the power of social capital. A smart borrower gains with a lower interest rate. A lender (I won’t call myself smart) gains with a unique idea. If there’s a bonus of a financial reward for both parties, why not take advantage of that?

Still want to claim you weren't out to make money?

Yes, I wanted to show how tempting it would be for the Mr. Bads of the world to use truthful, simple, beautiful logic (thanks Richard Feynman) to justify their position.

[nonattender]

Dick Feynman called on the spirit phone.  He said "Tell that guy his exploit doesn't scale" - and then I heard bongos, before the line died.

-t

[chameleon734]

Do you not understand why people are calling you sleazy?

- It's only the people in this community.  Impartial people like the Credit Karma CEO said that I wasn't.  That's good enough for me.

Do you not understand that your entire approach in this matter was unethical?

- Eating babies is unethical as well.  Do you not understand the parallels?  It seems the people in the poll here do.

Do you not understand that you portrayed yourself negatively, and others will now think less of you?

- ...I'm not concerned about this group of people thinking less of me as they already had thought nothing of me.

Do you not understand your blog post identifies yourself and your client PMI by association with a scheme, that if carried out, could ultimately result in loss of lending license, and perhaps even worse?

- By exposing this to the public, I'm giving the chance to fix or address it.  It's much better that I do it this way, then we find out that it's been happening behind the scenes.
- Do you not realize that I've done nothing illegal here?

A simple "NO" would have sufficed. 

I suspected you would answer the long way and attempt to sidestep the questions, hence the hint in my original post (Hint: A SINGLE 2 or 3 letter word is sufficient to answer all questions.)

It's not really entertaining watching you squirm for lengthy answers that don't address the questions. 

--Quote edited to make the post shorter.

I believe these questions would be "leading the witness" if we were in court.  As such, I guess the best answer would have been to object and not answer them at all.  I tried to do better than that.

If you can't defend yourself on the internet how do you expect to do the same in a courtroom?

[Staneslav]

a

[Staneslav]

a

[ira01]

I believe these questions would be "leading the witness" if we were in court.  As such, I guess the best answer would have been to object and not answer them at all.  I tried to do better than that.

As an attorney, let me tell you that leading questions are perfectly acceptable (indeed preferred) for witnesses that are not your own (or even your own witnesses that are "hostile").  Accordingly, your objection is overruled. 

As others have eloquently stated, you are a sleazy tool and your protestations to the contrary are absurd.  Give it a rest already.

[lazymanandmoney]

Do you not understand why people are calling you sleazy?

- It's only the people in this community.  Impartial people like the Credit Karma CEO said that I wasn't.  That's good enough for me.

Do you not understand that your entire approach in this matter was unethical?

- Eating babies is unethical as well.  Do you not understand the parallels?  It seems the people in the poll here do.

Do you not understand that you portrayed yourself negatively, and others will now think less of you?

- ...I'm not concerned about this group of people thinking less of me as they already had thought nothing of me.

Do you not understand your blog post identifies yourself and your client PMI by association with a scheme, that if carried out, could ultimately result in loss of lending license, and perhaps even worse?

- By exposing this to the public, I'm giving the chance to fix or address it.  It's much better that I do it this way, then we find out that it's been happening behind the scenes.
- Do you not realize that I've done nothing illegal here?

A simple "NO" would have sufficed. 

I suspected you would answer the long way and attempt to sidestep the questions, hence the hint in my original post (Hint: A SINGLE 2 or 3 letter word is sufficient to answer all questions.)

It's not really entertaining watching you squirm for lengthy answers that don't address the questions. 

--Quote edited to make the post shorter.

I believe these questions would be "leading the witness" if we were in court.  As such, I guess the best answer would have been to object and not answer them at all.  I tried to do better than that.

If you can't defend yourself on the internet how do you expect to do the same in a courtroom?

Pretty simple, I don't have to...

I will play your game again (since you like being off-topic).  I would be able to object to the question and explain myself when my own lawyer questioned me.  There are questions in the world, where a yes and no is not an appropriate answer.  These questions are examples of that.

[lazymanandmoney]

Dick Feynman called on the spirit phone.  He said "Tell that guy his exploit doesn't scale" - and then I heard bongos, before the line died.

-t

Not looking to scale or exploit, just get Prosper's ear.

[lazymanandmoney]

If there’s a bonus of a financial reward for both parties, why not take advantage of that?

You listed this as a reason for your action. You did this at least partly to make money in the event that prosper did not take action against you. The structure of your post indicates this.

Backpedal all you want.

Why Am I Doing this?
If you think it sounds dirty, you are right. I’m putting on a grey hat in this case. I want to see how Prosper reacts to such a proposal. They’ve blurred the line by adding the social element to the loan marketplace. I want to blur it more. I want Prosper to look at endorsements and say, “Is this really the right model? Can we make it better?” Innovation occurs when  a potential problem is exposed. Perhaps “buying an endorsement” doesn’t qualify as a problem in Prosper’s eyes. If that’s the case, that’s worth knowing as well.

Lastly, I think it’s a great way to demonstrate the power of social capital. A smart borrower gains with a lower interest rate. A lender (I won’t call myself smart) gains with a unique idea. If there’s a bonus of a financial reward for both parties, why not take advantage of that?

Still want to claim you weren't out to make money?

Yes, I wanted to show how tempting it would be for the Mr. Bads of the world to use truthful, simple, beautiful logic (thanks Richard Feynman) to justify their position.

Really? Because the bolded parts indicate that you were seriously looking for offers.

You also encourage people to contact you. Everything about the post indicates that you were serious. That you stated in advance that it was a gray area is offset by your interest in a transaction that would benefit yourself. Note that you didn't say that you hope Prosper stops you, you were simply interested in how they would react.

These are not the words of a righteous cause. These are the words of someone up to no good that is smart enough to cover their own ass.

But the non-bolded parts clearly state that I'm trying to get Prosper's attention.  I don't need to say that I hope that Prosper stops me, because I was never looking to do it.  I needed to make it look as real as possible to get the reaction from Prosper.  Apparently, I didn't do a good enough job, because I haven't heard from them.

[lazymanandmoney]

I believe these questions would be "leading the witness" if we were in court.  As such, I guess the best answer would have been to object and not answer them at all.  I tried to do better than that.

As an attorney, let me tell you that leading questions are perfectly acceptable (indeed preferred) for witnesses that are not your own (or even your own witnesses that are "hostile").  Accordingly, your objection is overruled. 

As others have eloquently stated, you are a sleazy tool and your protestations to the contrary are absurd.  Give it a rest already.

So my objection may be overruled, but my own lawyer would give me a chance to speak my part.  No one here is interested in that though.  They just want to hear the lines of "Yes"s and "No"s to the questions and then go on tangents of either "See he admits he's sleazy" or "Wow, he's still in denial about being sleazy."

I was pronounced guilty by the community in the wording of this thread.

[pioneer11]

Well, did you get Prosper's attention yet?

[lazymanandmoney]

More food for thought from an assistant professor of Economics... "this subject would make an excellent theoretical economics paper."

See, other educated people see the point that is being missed here.  You may disagree with the satire that I chose to get the issue out in the open.  Maybe I'm not a good writer, I can live with that.  However, at least admit that the purchasing of endorsements is an issue.

Even nonattender said that it can be used to re-invent group leader awards.

[lazymanandmoney]

Well, did you get Prosper's attention yet?

Look up two posts from this... nothing yet.