In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue, 24Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
administration" to become the personal representative (PR).The next of kin (NoK) needs to apply for "letters of
rent, per the agreement, and that the lodger should set aside the rent
The NoK should inform the lodger of the need to continue paying
since a week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that week (couldn't find anyone to assist).In the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
Eh? How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
being the closest related person, as the name suggests.NoK is not an appointed position but one that comes from actually
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive youhome from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is
please tell us what relation the lodger was to the deceased.Instead of drip-feeding information, as seems unfortunately usual,
For perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse.
Lodger also has two houses of their own, one of which I expect istheir formal permanent residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's house.
Please confirm.Once appointed,Which was about a year later.
So, he is now the official personal representative of the deceased?
Yes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestateestate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
the time required for the appointment to be made. In the interimthe PR is responsible for repairs, but this can be complicated by
Once formally appointed, the PR can give the lodger "reasonable notice"
Title to the house will pass according to the rules of intestacy.
related to the deceased, it is likely that the intestacy rules mean he
If the personal representative is the next-of-kin, ie closely
Once they *are* the PR, I agree. It's the previous year I'm interested
in.
they have only limited protection under the Protection from Eviction ActThere was no rental payment, as such.
Usually, a lodger is classed as an "excluded occupier" which means
following the death of the resident landlord and can demand to see both
However, the lodger is not required to move out immediately
resident landlord, NoK and PR, plus be prepared to produce a record of
The lodger should document all communication with the deceased
about a year later.Given the lodger, NoK, and eventual PR are all the same person...
'eventual'? You said above he was appointed, apparently as PR,
Yes, they weren't appointed on the landlords death, or the day after,or the day after that. Eventually(sic) a year later.
wine they've drunk.But no payments made anyway.
Let's try a different question: once the landlord dies, should the lodger pay market rent into escrow, in case in the fullness of time the beneficiary doesn't turn out to be them? And do they have to log the
It all depends on the circumstances, which you need to clarify.
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to another contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to another
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it?
Nothing.
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain posters simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board;
such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on
them personally.
bb
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to another >>> contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it?
Nothing.
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain posters >> simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board;
such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on
them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely irrelevant, personal attack:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? That's a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely
forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to another
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it?
Nothing.
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain posters simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board;
such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on
them personally.
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to another >>> contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it?
Nothing.
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain posters >> simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board;
such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on
them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely irrelevant, personal attack:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? That's a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely
forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" is an ideal and interesting use of ULM.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to another >>>> contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it?
Nothing.
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain posters >>> simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board;
such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on
them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely
irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? That's a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely
forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to sort out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own
volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't simply telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a
"personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he
apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" is an >> ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board there's nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as sole moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to another >>>>> contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it?
Nothing.
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board;
such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on
them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely
irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? That's a >>> bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely
forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to sort >> out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own
volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't simply
telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a
"personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he
apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" is an >>> ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as sole
moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
--
Roger Hayter
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to another
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it?
Nothing.
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain posters simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board;
such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on
them personally.
bb
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:2567571622.4f393467@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to another >>>>>> contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it?
Nothing.
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board;
such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put >>>>> forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on >>>>> them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely
irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? That's a >>>> bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely
forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to sort
out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own
volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't simply >>> telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a
"personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he
apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" is an
ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as sole >>> moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
Anyone might be lead to believe that you're simply inviting me to check that claim, for myself.
On 25 Feb 2026 at 14:35:12 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
No, I'm inviting you to take my word for it. But, of course, if you want to check that's also fine.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2567571622.4f393467@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to another
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it?
Nothing.
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain >>>>>> posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board;
such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put >>>>>> forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on >>>>>> them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely >>>>> irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? That's a >>>>> bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely
forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to >>>> sort
out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own
volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't simply >>>> telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a
"personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he
apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" is >>>>> an
ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board >>>> there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as sole >>>> moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
Anyone might be lead to believe that you're simply inviting me to check that >> claim, for myself.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:3234546645.469a0002@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 14:35:12 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
No, I'm inviting you to take my word for it. But, of course, if you want to >> check that's also fine.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2567571622.4f393467@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to anotherNothing.
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it? >>>>>>>
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain >>>>>>> posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board; >>>>>>> such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put >>>>>>> forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on >>>>>>> them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely >>>>>> irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? That's a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely >>>>>> forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to >>>>> sort
out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own
volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't simply >>>>> telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a
"personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he
apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" is >>>>>> an
ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board >>>>> there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as sole >>>>> moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
Anyone might be lead to believe that you're simply inviting me to check that
claim, for myself.
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea to encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a "public" forum, do you ?
Whereas I would have thought that a more responsible approach would
be to positively discourage people from disclosing too much. Initially
at least, unless totally anonymously.
For all sorts of reasons; the least of which being the possibility of their subsequently tripping themselves up
bb--
On 27 Feb 2026 at 08:34:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3234546645.469a0002@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 14:35:12 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
No, I'm inviting you to take my word for it. But, of course, if you want to >>> check that's also fine.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2567571622.4f393467@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to >>>>>>>>> anotherNothing.
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it? >>>>>>>>
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain >>>>>>>> posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board; >>>>>>>> such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put >>>>>>>> forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on >>>>>>>> them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely >>>>>>> irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? That's
a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely >>>>>>> forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to >>>>>> sort
out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own
volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't simply >>>>>> telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a
"personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he >>>>>> apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" is
an
ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board >>>>>> there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as sole >>>>>> moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
Anyone might be lead to believe that you're simply inviting me to check >>>> that
claim, for myself.
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea to >> encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a
"public" forum, do you ?
That is a non-sequitur almost worthy of JNugent. I am not expressing an opinion on what people should do, just saying what the founders of ULM said it
was for.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:8441491328.aabdef0a@uninhabited.net...
On 27 Feb 2026 at 08:34:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3234546645.469a0002@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 14:35:12 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
No, I'm inviting you to take my word for it. But, of course, if you want to
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2567571622.4f393467@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to >>>>>>>>>> anotherNothing.
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it? >>>>>>>>>
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain >>>>>>>>> posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board; >>>>>>>>> such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put >>>>>>>>> forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on >>>>>>>>> them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely >>>>>>>> irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? That's
a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely >>>>>>>> forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to >>>>>>> sort
out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own
volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't simply
telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a >>>>>>> "personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he >>>>>>> apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate >>>>>>>
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" is
an
ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board >>>>>>> there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as sole
moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
Anyone might be lead to believe that you're simply inviting me to check >>>>> that
claim, for myself.
check that's also fine.
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea to >>> encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a >>> "public" forum, do you ?
That is a non-sequitur almost worthy of JNugent. I am not expressing an
opinion on what people should do, just saying what the founders of ULM said it
was for.
So do you think that the founders of ULM were acting wisely, if as you claim, they
encourage members of the public to share "personal" information, on a "public" forum ?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:8441491328.aabdef0a@uninhabited.net...
On 27 Feb 2026 at 08:34:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3234546645.469a0002@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 14:35:12 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
No, I'm inviting you to take my word for it. But, of course, if you want to
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2567571622.4f393467@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to >>>>>>>>>> anotherNothing.
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it? >>>>>>>>>
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain >>>>>>>>> posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board; >>>>>>>>> such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put >>>>>>>>> forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on >>>>>>>>> them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely >>>>>>>> irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? That's
a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely >>>>>>>> forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to >>>>>>> sort
out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own
volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't simply
telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a >>>>>>> "personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he >>>>>>> apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate >>>>>>>
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" is
an
ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board >>>>>>> there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as sole
moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
Anyone might be lead to believe that you're simply inviting me to check >>>>> that
claim, for myself.
check that's also fine.
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea to >>> encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a >>> "public" forum, do you ?
That is a non-sequitur almost worthy of JNugent. I am not expressing an
opinion on what people should do, just saying what the founders of ULM said it
was for.
So do you think that the founders of ULM were acting wisely, if as you claim, they
encourage members of the public to share "personal" information, on a "public" forum ?
bb
On 2/27/26 11:28, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8441491328.aabdef0a@uninhabited.net...
On 27 Feb 2026 at 08:34:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3234546645.469a0002@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 14:35:12 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
No, I'm inviting you to take my word for it. But, of course, if you want >>>>> to
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2567571622.4f393467@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to >>>>>>>>>>> anotherNothing.
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it? >>>>>>>>>>
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain >>>>>>>>>> posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board; >>>>>>>>>> such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on >>>>>>>>>> them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely >>>>>>>>> irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? >>>>>>>>> That's
a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely >>>>>>>>> forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to
sort
out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own >>>>>>>> volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't >>>>>>>> simply
telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a >>>>>>>> "personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he >>>>>>>> apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate >>>>>>>>
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" >>>>>>>>> is
an
ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board >>>>>>>> there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as >>>>>>>> sole
moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
Anyone might be lead to believe that you're simply inviting me to check >>>>>> that
claim, for myself.
check that's also fine.
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea to
encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a >>>> "public" forum, do you ?
That is a non-sequitur almost worthy of JNugent. I am not expressing an
opinion on what people should do, just saying what the founders of ULM said >>> it
was for.
So do you think that the founders of ULM were acting wisely, if as you claim,
they
encourage members of the public to share "personal" information, on a
"public" forum ?
Facebook?, Linked-in? etc.
.On 27 Feb 2026 at 08:34:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>> wrote:
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea to
encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a >>>> "public" forum, do you ?
Roland likes to chinwag about his life, why shouldn't he? He very rarely says anything contentious, in a politically offensive kind of way.
On 27 Feb 2026 at 11:28:30 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8441491328.aabdef0a@uninhabited.net...
On 27 Feb 2026 at 08:34:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3234546645.469a0002@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 14:35:12 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
No, I'm inviting you to take my word for it. But, of course, if you want >>>>> to
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2567571622.4f393467@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to >>>>>>>>>>> anotherNothing.
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it? >>>>>>>>>>
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain >>>>>>>>>> posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board; >>>>>>>>>> such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on >>>>>>>>>> them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely >>>>>>>>> irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? >>>>>>>>> That's
a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely >>>>>>>>> forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to
sort
out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own >>>>>>>> volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't >>>>>>>> simply
telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a >>>>>>>> "personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he >>>>>>>> apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate >>>>>>>>
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" >>>>>>>>> is
an
ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board >>>>>>>> there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as >>>>>>>> sole
moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
Anyone might be lead to believe that you're simply inviting me to check >>>>>> that
claim, for myself.
check that's also fine.
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea to
encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a >>>> "public" forum, do you ?
That is a non-sequitur almost worthy of JNugent. I am not expressing an
opinion on what people should do, just saying what the founders of ULM said
it
was for.
So do you think that the founders of ULM were acting wisely, if as you claim,
they
encourage members of the public to share "personal" information, on a
"public" forum ?
bb
I don't care to express an opinion on that. A clue is that I have presented slightly anonymised versions of my own legal dilemmas there on several occasions; draw your own conclusions.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:10ns0tb$1qhgd$1@dont-email.me...
On 2/27/26 11:28, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8441491328.aabdef0a@uninhabited.net...
On 27 Feb 2026 at 08:34:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3234546645.469a0002@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 14:35:12 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
No, I'm inviting you to take my word for it. But, of course, if you want >>>>>> to
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2567571622.4f393467@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to >>>>>>>>>>>> anotherNothing.
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it? >>>>>>>>>>>
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain >>>>>>>>>>> posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board; >>>>>>>>>>> such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack on
them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely >>>>>>>>>> irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? >>>>>>>>>> That's
a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely >>>>>>>>>> forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time to
sort
out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own >>>>>>>>> volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't >>>>>>>>> simply
telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a >>>>>>>>> "personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he >>>>>>>>> apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate >>>>>>>>>
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board" >>>>>>>>>> is
an
ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board >>>>>>>>> there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as >>>>>>>>> sole
moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
Anyone might be lead to believe that you're simply inviting me to check >>>>>>> that
claim, for myself.
check that's also fine.
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea to
encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a >>>>> "public" forum, do you ?
That is a non-sequitur almost worthy of JNugent. I am not expressing an >>>> opinion on what people should do, just saying what the founders of ULM said
it
was for.
So do you think that the founders of ULM were acting wisely, if as you claim,
they
encourage members of the public to share "personal" information, on a
"public" forum ?
Facebook?, Linked-in? etc.
.On 27 Feb 2026 at 08:34:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>> wrote:
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea to
encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a >>>>> "public" forum, do you ?
Any good ? *
Roland likes to chinwag about his life, why shouldn't he? He very rarely says
anything contentious, in a politically offensive kind of way.
Congratulations. You appear to have missed the whole point of this thread.
Which was that Norman's post was rejected, apparently, *on the sole basis* that he made reference to personal information, which Roland himself had chosen to disclose. People can post what they like, as far as I'm concerned; it was the basis of the rejection I was solely concerned with.
On 27 Feb 2026 at 16:22:14 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
snip
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ns0tb$1qhgd$1@dont-email.me...
On 2/27/26 11:28, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8441491328.aabdef0a@uninhabited.net...
On 27 Feb 2026 at 08:34:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3234546645.469a0002@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 14:35:12 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
No, I'm inviting you to take my word for it. But, of course, if you want
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2567571622.4f393467@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 13:08:38 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1542023961.87ff27cc@uninhabited.net...
On 25 Feb 2026 at 09:33:52 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n07s1lFthj9U3@mid.individual.net...
Just had the following rejected for being 'abusive or hurtful to >>>>>>>>>>>>> anotherNothing.
contributor'. Can anyone tell me please what is abusive in it? >>>>>>>>>>>>
But this rejection is possibly an inevitable consequence of certain
posters
simply using ULM as a personal advice service and sounding board; >>>>>>>>>>>> such that any robust criticism of any argument they may choose to >>>>>>>>>>>> put
forward could also be viewed, should they so choose as an attack >>>>>>>>>>>> on
them personally.
bb
I am not so sure; the following looks like a gratuitous, and largely
irrelevant, personal attack:
quote:
"So, you're complaining a bit about the length of time it took? >>>>>>>>>>> That's
a
bit rich when you've indicated here before that you took absolutely >>>>>>>>>>> forever to sort out your own mother's estate."
:unquote
And yes I had noticed that. However
Apparently Roland stated previously that he himself took a long time
to
sort
out his own mother's estate.
This was information which presumably Roland offered of his own >>>>>>>>>> volition; and without being asked.
Simply drawing attention to this fact, assuming that Norman isn't >>>>>>>>>> simply
telling outright lies, is neither gratuitous nor irrelevant nor a >>>>>>>>>> "personaL attack"; when Roland is now drawing attention to what he >>>>>>>>>> apparently regards as unwelcome delays in settling another estate >>>>>>>>>>
And I really do think "a personal advice service and sounding board"
is
an
ideal and interesting use of ULM.
Usenet happens to be a Public Forum.
If someone is that desperate for personal advice and a sounding board
there's
nothing to stop them setting up their own group. With themselves as >>>>>>>>>> sole
moderators
You're trolling as well, of course.
bb
Personal advice is a chartered purpose of ULM.
Anyone might be lead to believe that you're simply inviting me to check
that
claim, for myself.
to
check that's also fine.
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea
to
encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a >>>>>> "public" forum, do you ?
That is a non-sequitur almost worthy of JNugent. I am not expressing an >>>>> opinion on what people should do, just saying what the founders of ULM >>>>> said
it
was for.
So do you think that the founders of ULM were acting wisely, if as you >>>> claim,
they
encourage members of the public to share "personal" information, on a
"public" forum ?
Facebook?, Linked-in? etc.
.On 27 Feb 2026 at 08:34:37 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
So that along with Marc Zukerberg, you personally think it's a good idea
to
encourage members of the public to divulge "personal" information, on a >>>>>> "public" forum, do you ?
Any good ? *
Roland likes to chinwag about his life, why shouldn't he? He very rarely >>> says
anything contentious, in a politically offensive kind of way.
Congratulations. You appear to have missed the whole point of this thread. >>
Which was that Norman's post was rejected, apparently, *on the sole basis* >> that he made reference to personal information, which Roland himself had
chosen to disclose. People can post what they like, as far as I'm concerned; >> it was the basis of the rejection I was solely concerned with.
I think you have totally missed the point. The post was not offensive because of personal information. It was sneering at Roland for criticising a slow approach to probate (which was not actually his point anyway) by saying he couldn't do better himself. That was just plain rude, as well as silly.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 09:00:04 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
9 files (16,136K bytes) |
| Messages: | 208,126 |