Res -

Excellent advice, as usual.

In a different, and agonizingly long thread, "Burned" stated s/he ignored the phone call(s), and later ignored the delivered documentation (summons?), because s/he did not like the looks of the person who delivered the documentation.

Posters in that thread asked for proof ... eventually, "Burned" provided the link, as above.

So, we have an example of a person who ignored written letters and (summons?), and did not appear in court to provide a defense.  Now, "Burned" is posting statements that the calls were legitimate (no proof there), the letters were ignored, and the (summons?) was issued but ignored.

>> You can't come running to a complaint website and blame everyone else for your lack of due diligence  <<

Exactly.  "Burned" seems to want to ventilate ... at length ... suggesting the regulars are at fault for stating a mere phone call is not legally sufficient proof of debt.  When, in fact, "Burned" is at fault for ignoring the truly sufficient proofs of debt.

Hopefully this thread will not grow to the size of the other one, as all arguments seem to have been made.