In message <n0m264F6tu1U1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:11:15 on Mon, 2Mar 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
26 Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:On 27/02/2026 12:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0bdqdFgm9fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:22:20 on Thu,
I'm told one of the issues during the week things imploded, wasfinding stuff like IDs. It got worse, because a lot of the deceased's paperwork was locked inside an Apple laptop, which to this day no-one
the spouse had no option but to refuse the offer of a tenancy from aSpeaking strictly legally, (which is the default for this group),
Although they did shuffle some of the estate's physical assets tothird parties, long before formally appointed PR. Naughty, or nice?
Another rejection for 'abuse'. Anyone else think it's abusive?
It's not as if I called him an ignorant, interfering, evasive,
misdirecting old busybody, is it?
"On 03/03/2026 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0m264F6tu1U1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:11:15 on Mon, 2Mar 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
26 Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:On 27/02/2026 12:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0bdqdFgm9fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:22:20 on Thu,
I'm told one of the issues during the week things imploded, wasfinding stuff like IDs. It got worse, because a lot of the deceased's paperwork was locked inside an Apple laptop, which to this day no-one
has been able to access.
Have you Googled for 'how to get round password protection on apple laptop'?
the spouse had no option but to refuse the offer of a tenancy from aSpeaking strictly legally, (which is the default for this group),
third party as they could not legally grant a tenancy to someone until
they were formally appointed as the PR.
Although they did shuffle some of the estate's physical assets tothird parties, long before formally appointed PR. Naughty, or nice?
Legal. She was their beneficial owner.
Why do you seek to control her?"
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Another rejection for 'abuse'. Anyone else think it's abusive?
It's not as if I called him an ignorant, interfering, evasive,
misdirecting old busybody, is it?
I rejected it because of the last sentence.
"On 03/03/2026 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0m264F6tu1U1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:11:15 on Mon, 2Mar 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
26 Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:On 27/02/2026 12:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0bdqdFgm9fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:22:20 on Thu,
I'm told one of the issues during the week things imploded, wasfinding stuff like IDs. It got worse, because a lot of the deceased's
paperwork was locked inside an Apple laptop, which to this day no-one
has been able to access.
Have you Googled for 'how to get round password protection on apple laptop'? >>
the spouse had no option but to refuse the offer of a tenancy from aSpeaking strictly legally, (which is the default for this group),
third party as they could not legally grant a tenancy to someone until
they were formally appointed as the PR.
third parties, long before formally appointed PR. Naughty, or nice?
Although they did shuffle some of the estate's physical assets to
Legal. She was their beneficial owner.
Why do you seek to control her?"
On 04/03/2026 15:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Another rejection for 'abuse'. Anyone else think it's abusive?
It's not as if I called him an ignorant, interfering, evasive,
misdirecting old busybody, is it?
I rejected it because of the last sentence.
And what exactly is abusive about it?
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Another rejection for 'abuse'. Anyone else think it's abusive?
It's not as if I called him an ignorant, interfering, evasive,
misdirecting old busybody, is it?
I rejected it because of the last sentence.
"On 03/03/2026 06:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0m264F6tu1U1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:11:15 on Mon, 2Mar 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
26 Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:On 27/02/2026 12:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0bdqdFgm9fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:22:20 on Thu,
I'm told one of the issues during the week things imploded, wasfinding stuff like IDs. It got worse, because a lot of the deceased's
paperwork was locked inside an Apple laptop, which to this day no-one
has been able to access.
Have you Googled for 'how to get round password protection on apple laptop'? >>
the spouse had no option but to refuse the offer of a tenancy from aSpeaking strictly legally, (which is the default for this group),
third party as they could not legally grant a tenancy to someone until
they were formally appointed as the PR.
third parties, long before formally appointed PR. Naughty, or nice?
Although they did shuffle some of the estate's physical assets to
Legal. She was their beneficial owner.
Why do you seek to control her?"
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n0r29iF1lcuU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 15:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Another rejection for 'abuse'. Anyone else think it's abusive?
It's not as if I called him an ignorant, interfering, evasive,
misdirecting old busybody, is it?
I rejected it because of the last sentence.
And what exactly is abusive about it?
Eh ?
" Why do you seek to control her?"
Accusing somebody of "seeking to *control* somebody else
potentially has downright sinister, and criminal implications.
As you well know.
And for which there is no possible evidence; as you also
well know.
Possibly you meant ?
" Why do you seek to *criticise* her?"
On 04/03/2026 18:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0r29iF1lcuU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 15:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Another rejection for 'abuse'. Anyone else think it's abusive?
It's not as if I called him an ignorant, interfering, evasive,
misdirecting old busybody, is it?
I rejected it because of the last sentence.
And what exactly is abusive about it?
Eh ?
" Why do you seek to control her?"
Accusing somebody of "seeking to *control* somebody else
potentially has downright sinister, and criminal implications.
As you well know.
Actually, no it doesn't.
And for which there is no possible evidence; as you also
well know.
Possibly you meant ?
" Why do you seek to *criticise* her?"
No. What he wanted (and perhaps still does) was for her to pay rent on the house, not drink the wine in it, and not give away any of the deceased's possessions. I'd call that seeking to control her. Wouldn't you?
So, asking why is a perfectly legitimate question, isn't it?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n0rf28F3cnaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 18:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0r29iF1lcuU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 15:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Another rejection for 'abuse'. Anyone else think it's abusive?
It's not as if I called him an ignorant, interfering, evasive,
misdirecting old busybody, is it?
I rejected it because of the last sentence.
And what exactly is abusive about it?
Eh ?
" Why do you seek to control her?"
Accusing somebody of "seeking to *control* somebody else
potentially has downright sinister, and criminal implications.
As you well know.
Actually, no it doesn't.
And for which there is no possible evidence; as you also
well know.
Possibly you meant ?
" Why do you seek to *criticise* her?"
No. What he wanted (and perhaps still does) was for her to pay rent on the >> house, not drink the wine in it, and not give away any of the deceased's
possessions. I'd call that seeking to control her. Wouldn't you?
Complete and utter garbage.
Criticising this woman's actions isn't in any way trying to control her.
Pointing out all her mistakes, simply allows others, who so choose, to
adopt the moral and practical high ground. " Had I been in this foolish woman's position *of course* I would never have done this, or done
that.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently
foolhardy and impetuous person ?
Complete and utter nonsense
You might just as well argue that anyone such as myself, seeking
to criticise your nonsensical arguments, was similarly seeking to
control you.
So, asking why is a perfectly legitimate question, isn't it?
No it isn't.
Roland got up your nose, and as a result you've made a mistake.
Why not just admit it ?
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could,
were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently
foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
On 04/03/2026 20:19, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rf28F3cnaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 18:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0r29iF1lcuU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 15:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Another rejection for 'abuse'. Anyone else think it's abusive?
It's not as if I called him an ignorant, interfering, evasive,
misdirecting old busybody, is it?
I rejected it because of the last sentence.
And what exactly is abusive about it?
Eh ?
" Why do you seek to control her?"
Accusing somebody of "seeking to *control* somebody else
potentially has downright sinister, and criminal implications.
As you well know.
Actually, no it doesn't.
And for which there is no possible evidence; as you also
well know.
Possibly you meant ?
" Why do you seek to *criticise* her?"
No. What he wanted (and perhaps still does) was for her to pay rent on the >>> house, not drink the wine in it, and not give away any of the deceased's >>> possessions. I'd call that seeking to control her. Wouldn't you?
Complete and utter garbage.
Criticising this woman's actions isn't in any way trying to control her.
Pointing out all her mistakes, simply allows others, who so choose, to
adopt the moral and practical high ground. " Had I been in this foolish
woman's position *of course* I would never have done this, or done
that.
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal,
despite being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n0rkb4F40s1U4@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 20:19, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rf28F3cnaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 18:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0r29iF1lcuU1@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 15:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Another rejection for 'abuse'. Anyone else think it's abusive? >>>>>>>>
It's not as if I called him an ignorant, interfering, evasive, >>>>>>>> misdirecting old busybody, is it?
I rejected it because of the last sentence.
And what exactly is abusive about it?
Eh ?
" Why do you seek to control her?"
Accusing somebody of "seeking to *control* somebody else
potentially has downright sinister, and criminal implications.
As you well know.
Actually, no it doesn't.
And for which there is no possible evidence; as you also
well know.
Possibly you meant ?
" Why do you seek to *criticise* her?"
No. What he wanted (and perhaps still does) was for her to pay rent on the
house, not drink the wine in it, and not give away any of the deceased's >>>> possessions. I'd call that seeking to control her. Wouldn't you?
Complete and utter garbage.
Criticising this woman's actions isn't in any way trying to control her. >>>
Pointing out all her mistakes, simply allows others, who so choose, to
adopt the moral and practical high ground. " Had I been in this foolish
woman's position *of course* I would never have done this, or done
that.
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and comment.
He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, were the answers >> to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be punished in some way >> for what she has already done.
Which is absolute baloney.
On ULM Roland is often complaining and asking questions about the NHS,
while on other groups he is forever complaining about almost every
rail operator in the UK; but not in the hope of making them change
or punishing them. He presumably considers himself a lone voice in
the wilderness IOW
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal,
Only to you.
As in this instance you are quite obviously Roland's plaything
despite being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Consider yourself trolled.
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and
comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could,
were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be
punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite
being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently
foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
If you think someone has an ulterior, nefarious motive for asking
questions in uk.legal.moderated, your remedy is not to accuse them
of it publically in the group,
it is to not answer their questions.
If you really think they've done something super illegal, call the
police.
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and
comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could,
were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be >>> punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite
being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently
foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that question.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and
comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could,
were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be >>>> punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite >>>> being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently
foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that
question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Basically, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, you are accusing
Roland an upstanding person of unsullied reputation of seeking to
prey on a rich widow.
Not only that but you are seemingly *demanding* that your totally unwarrented, hurtful, and plainly defamatory accusation, should be
published on a moderated newsgroup.
On 05/03/2026 11:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and >>>>> comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, >>>>> were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be >>>>> punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite >>>>> being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently
foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that >>> question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Not quite. She stands to in due course.
Basically, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, you are accusing
Roland an upstanding person of unsullied reputation of seeking to
prey on a rich widow.
I asked why he was seeking to control her. Before she inherits what she
is entitled to. It may have passed you by, but the discussion has been
about what Roland thinks she shouldn't do or be allowed to do in the meantime. He's even asked for legal reasons, the rationale for which
can only be that he wanted, perhaps still wants, to control her by using them.
--Not only that but you are seemingly *demanding* that your totally
unwarrented, hurtful, and plainly defamatory accusation, should be
published on a moderated newsgroup.
The truth can't be defamatory, nor should it be hurtful in any sensible society.
Besides all I did was pose a question that could be answered and
deserves an answer.
On 05/03/2026 11:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and >>>>> comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, >>>>> were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be >>>>> punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite >>>>> being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently
foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that >>> question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Not quite. She stands to in due course.
Besides all I did was pose a question that could be answered and deserves an answer.
On 5 Mar 2026 at 13:10:00 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/03/2026 11:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and >>>>>> comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, >>>>>> were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be >>>>>> punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite >>>>>> being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently
foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that >>>> question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Not quite. She stands to in due course.
Basically, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, you are accusing
Roland an upstanding person of unsullied reputation of seeking to
prey on a rich widow.
I asked why he was seeking to control her. Before she inherits what she
is entitled to. It may have passed you by, but the discussion has been
about what Roland thinks she shouldn't do or be allowed to do in the
meantime. He's even asked for legal reasons, the rationale for which
can only be that he wanted, perhaps still wants, to control her by using
them.
I would read Roland's questions purely as retrospective theoretical questions as to whether what the widow did was legally correct. The idea that he wants to change (or even mention to her) actions she has already taken seems to be a
bizarre invention by you for no great reason except perhaps to be offensive.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n0tdl9FcoscU2@mid.individual.net...
On 05/03/2026 11:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and >>>>>> comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, >>>>>> were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be >>>>>> punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite >>>>>> being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently
foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that >>>> question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Not quite. She stands to in due course.
I can only refer you to the answer you gave to Roland in the other thread
in respect of the term "beneficial ownership"
Besides all I did was pose a question that could be answered and deserves an >> answer.
But you didn;t just *pose a question* did you.
You posed a question based on a totally scurrlious assumption.
As to why exactly Roland;was seeking to prey, on the "beneficial owner" of a couple of million quid.
On 05/03/2026 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2026 at 13:10:00 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/03/2026 11:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and >>>>>>> comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, >>>>>>> were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be
punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite >>>>>>> being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently >>>>>>>> foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that >>>>> question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Not quite. She stands to in due course.
Basically, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, you are accusing
Roland an upstanding person of unsullied reputation of seeking to
prey on a rich widow.
I asked why he was seeking to control her. Before she inherits what she >>> is entitled to. It may have passed you by, but the discussion has been
about what Roland thinks she shouldn't do or be allowed to do in the
meantime. He's even asked for legal reasons, the rationale for which
can only be that he wanted, perhaps still wants, to control her by using >>> them.
I would read Roland's questions purely as retrospective theoretical questions
as to whether what the widow did was legally correct. The idea that he wants >> to change (or even mention to her) actions she has already taken seems to be a
bizarre invention by you for no great reason except perhaps to be offensive.
Why is he so interested in the legalities otherwise? Do give me a
rational and credible explanation that does not make you look utterly
naive and gullible.
On 5 Mar 2026 at 17:11:25 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/03/2026 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2026 at 13:10:00 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/03/2026 11:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and >>>>>>>> comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, >>>>>>>> were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be
punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite
being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal >>>>>>>>> inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently >>>>>>>>> foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that >>>>>> question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Not quite. She stands to in due course.
Basically, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, you are accusing
Roland an upstanding person of unsullied reputation of seeking to
prey on a rich widow.
I asked why he was seeking to control her. Before she inherits what she >>>> is entitled to. It may have passed you by, but the discussion has been >>>> about what Roland thinks she shouldn't do or be allowed to do in the
meantime. He's even asked for legal reasons, the rationale for which
can only be that he wanted, perhaps still wants, to control her by using >>>> them.
I would read Roland's questions purely as retrospective theoretical questions
as to whether what the widow did was legally correct. The idea that he wants
to change (or even mention to her) actions she has already taken seems to be a
bizarre invention by you for no great reason except perhaps to be offensive.
Why is he so interested in the legalities otherwise? Do give me a
rational and credible explanation that does not make you look utterly
naive and gullible.
Had you considered that he might be interested in the legalities as a subject to discuss in a legal discussion group? Or is this two far-fetched?
On 5 Mar 2026 at 17:11:25 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/03/2026 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2026 at 13:10:00 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/03/2026 11:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and >>>>>>>> comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, >>>>>>>> were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be
punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite
being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal >>>>>>>>> inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently >>>>>>>>> foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that >>>>>> question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Not quite. She stands to in due course.
Basically, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, you are accusing
Roland an upstanding person of unsullied reputation of seeking to
prey on a rich widow.
I asked why he was seeking to control her. Before she inherits what she >>>> is entitled to. It may have passed you by, but the discussion has been >>>> about what Roland thinks she shouldn't do or be allowed to do in the
meantime. He's even asked for legal reasons, the rationale for which
can only be that he wanted, perhaps still wants, to control her by using >>>> them.
I would read Roland's questions purely as retrospective theoretical questions
as to whether what the widow did was legally correct. The idea that he wants
to change (or even mention to her) actions she has already taken seems to be a
bizarre invention by you for no great reason except perhaps to be offensive.
Why is he so interested in the legalities otherwise? Do give me a
rational and credible explanation that does not make you look utterly
naive and gullible.
Had you considered that he might be interested in the legalities as a subject to discuss in a legal discussion group? Or is this two far-fetched?
On 05/03/2026 18:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2026 at 17:11:25 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 05/03/2026 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 5 Mar 2026 at 13:10:00 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 05/03/2026 11:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and >>>>>>>>> comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, >>>>>>>>> were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be
punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite
being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal >>>>>>>>>> inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently >>>>>>>>>> foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that
question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Not quite. She stands to in due course.
Basically, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, you are accusing >>>>>> Roland an upstanding person of unsullied reputation of seeking to >>>>>> prey on a rich widow.
I asked why he was seeking to control her. Before she inherits what she >>>>> is entitled to. It may have passed you by, but the discussion has been >>>>> about what Roland thinks she shouldn't do or be allowed to do in the >>>>> meantime. He's even asked for legal reasons, the rationale for which >>>>> can only be that he wanted, perhaps still wants, to control her by using >>>>> them.
I would read Roland's questions purely as retrospective theoretical questions
as to whether what the widow did was legally correct. The idea that he wants
to change (or even mention to her) actions she has already taken seems to be a
bizarre invention by you for no great reason except perhaps to be offensive.
Why is he so interested in the legalities otherwise? Do give me a
rational and credible explanation that does not make you look utterly
naive and gullible.
Had you considered that he might be interested in the legalities as a subject
to discuss in a legal discussion group? Or is this two far-fetched?
It's too far-fetched, except for the gullible and naive.
He has an interest in the estate being discussed. What that is
precisely he refuses to say. But it's very clear it's not purely academic.
On 05/03/2026 13:28, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0tdl9FcoscU2@mid.individual.net...
On 05/03/2026 11:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and >>>>>>> comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, >>>>>>> were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be
punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite >>>>>>> being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal
inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently >>>>>>>> foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that >>>>> question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Not quite. She stands to in due course.
I can only refer you to the answer you gave to Roland in the other thread
in respect of the term "beneficial ownership"
If you have a point, would you like to make it now?
Besides all I did was pose a question that could be answered and deserves an
answer.
But you didn;t just *pose a question* did you.
Yes.
You posed a question based on a totally scurrilous assumption.
As to why exactly Roland;was seeking to prey, on the "beneficial owner" of a >> couple of million quid.
Did I use the word 'prey'? I think not.
Did I mean 'prey'? I think not.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n0ts75FevdmU2@mid.individual.net...
On 05/03/2026 13:28, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0tdl9FcoscU2@mid.individual.net...
On 05/03/2026 11:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0rt92F5i86U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2026 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-03-04, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
No, he wasn't saying that at all. This was not just observation and >>>>>>>> comment. He was asking legal questions in the obvious hope he could, >>>>>>>> were the answers to his liking, make her change what she was doing or be
punished in some way for what she has already done.
He has an interest and a motive which he has chosen to conceal, despite
being asked, but he's not a disinterested party.
Why would anyone, other than those with sinister or criminal >>>>>>>>> inrttentions ever wish to try and "control" such an apparently >>>>>>>>> foolhardy and impetuous person ?
I think that's for him to answer.
No, it isn't.
Well, it can't be for anyone else. But do please note I didn't ask that >>>>>> question.
No. Here is the question you actually asked
" Why do you seek to control her?"
This being a rich widow who'd just inherited millions.
Not quite. She stands to in due course.
I can only refer you to the answer you gave to Roland in the other thread >>> in respect of the term "beneficial ownership"
If you have a point, would you like to make it now?
Besides all I did was pose a question that could be answered and deserves an
answer.
But you didn;t just *pose a question* did you.
Yes.
You posed a question based on a totally scurrilous assumption.
As to why exactly Roland;was seeking to prey, on the "beneficial owner" of a
couple of million quid.
Did I use the word 'prey'? I think not.
Seeking to control someone, is in many situations equivalent to
preying on them.
Did I mean 'prey'? I think not.
Possibly not for the first time, what you meant, and what you think
you meant, in using a particular word or phrase, are not what others
might quite reasonably understand you to have meant.
Don't be absurd. I say what I mean and mean what I say.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n0u6iuFgkahU1@mid.individual.net...
Don't be absurd. I say what I mean and mean what I say.
On the basis of no evidence whatsoever you accused Roland of seeking to control this woman.
You haven't yet given any cogent explanation for his unnatural interest in her
affairs, which are none of his business, and their legality.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n0vfliFmknjU1@mid.individual.net...
You haven't yet given any cogent explanation for his unnatural interest in her
affairs, which are none of his business, and their legality.
There you go again. You just can't help yourself, can you ?
*"Unnatural" interest.
Have you never considered the possibility that Roland is a "people person" ?
And what are "people persons", or should that be "people people", most interested in ?
Its probably time for you to be put under sedation, again.
You should be due back in around 8 weeks time.
On 06/03/2026 10:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0vfliFmknjU1@mid.individual.net...
You haven't yet given any cogent explanation for his unnatural interest in >>> her
affairs, which are none of his business, and their legality.
There you go again. You just can't help yourself, can you ?
*"Unnatural" interest.
Have you never considered the possibility that Roland is a "people person" ? >>
And what are "people persons", or should that be "people people", most
interested in ?
Its probably time for you to be put under sedation, again.
You should be due back in around 8 weeks time.
I don't think he's looking into the legality of her personal affairs in a kindly effort to help her. Do you?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:10:00 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (10,064K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,374 |