In message <n0q957FrresU5@mid.individual.net>, at 08:34:46 on Wed, 4Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
3 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:On 04/03/2026 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0nk6uFdu1nU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:25:02 on Tue,
drink the contents of the wine cellar, which at that stage belongs toOn 03/03/2026 06:16, Roland Perry wrote:
50yrs a lodger and one week a wife.The word I originally used was "lodger".
Whereas it should have course have been 'widow'.
There's also the matter I hinted at some days ago: is it OK to
shuffles off.Not until the PR+Probate process has completed.
Yes of course it is. She is its beneficial owner.
Not so. As his widow, she is its beneficial owner as soon as he
No, because the house wasn't in joint names. Nor was it her primaryresidence.
I'm sure I've told you that several times before.
Just had yet another prissy rejection in ulm for 'abuse' for the following:
"On 04/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0q957FrresU5@mid.individual.net>, at 08:34:46 on Wed, 4Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
3 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:On 04/03/2026 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0nk6uFdu1nU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:25:02 on Tue,
drink the contents of the wine cellar, which at that stage belongs toOn 03/03/2026 06:16, Roland Perry wrote:
50yrs a lodger and one week a wife.The word I originally used was "lodger".
Whereas it should have course have been 'widow'.
There's also the matter I hinted at some days ago: is it OK to
the estate not the survivor.
shuffles off.Not until the PR+Probate process has completed.
Yes of course it is. She is its beneficial owner.
Not so. As his widow, she is its beneficial owner as soon as he
No, because the house wasn't in joint names. Nor was it her primaryresidence.
I'm sure I've told you that several times before.
And you're wrong.
You need to understand what beneficial ownership means.
(look it up in a dictionary, if that helps)"
What's wrong with that?
Just had yet another prissy rejection in ulm for 'abuse' for the following:
"On 04/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0q957FrresU5@mid.individual.net>, at 08:34:46 on Wed, 4Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
3 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:On 04/03/2026 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0nk6uFdu1nU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:25:02 on Tue,
drink the contents of the wine cellar, which at that stage belongs to the estate not the survivor.On 03/03/2026 06:16, Roland Perry wrote:
50yrs a lodger and one week a wife.The word I originally used was "lodger".
Whereas it should have course have been 'widow'.
There's also the matter I hinted at some days ago: is it OK to
shuffles off.Not until the PR+Probate process has completed.
Yes of course it is. She is its beneficial owner.
Not so. As his widow, she is its beneficial owner as soon as he
No, because the house wasn't in joint names. Nor was it her primaryresidence.
I'm sure I've told you that several times before.
And you're wrong.
You need to understand what beneficial ownership means.
(look it up in a dictionary, if that helps)"
What's wrong with that?
If it's the last line, it's word-for-word what Mr Perry said to me right here in this thread at 18.20 yesterday:
"I'm sure I said they weren't "intimate" in the usual meaning of that word (look it up in a dictionary, if that helps)."
Why hasn't action been taken to rein in his abuse?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n0susfFae81U1@mid.individual.net...
Just had yet another prissy rejection in ulm for 'abuse' for the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------
"On 04/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0q957FrresU5@mid.individual.net>, at 08:34:46 on Wed, 4Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
3 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:On 04/03/2026 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0nk6uFdu1nU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:25:02 on Tue,
drink the contents of the wine cellar, which at that stage belongs to the >> estate not the survivor.On 03/03/2026 06:16, Roland Perry wrote:
50yrs a lodger and one week a wife.The word I originally used was "lodger".
Whereas it should have course have been 'widow'.
There's also the matter I hinted at some days ago: is it OK to
shuffles off.Not until the PR+Probate process has completed.
Yes of course it is. She is its beneficial owner.
Not so. As his widow, she is its beneficial owner as soon as he
residence.
No, because the house wasn't in joint names. Nor was it her primary
I'm sure I've told you that several times before.
And you're wrong.
You need to understand what beneficial ownership means.
(look it up in a dictionary, if that helps)"
------------------------------------------------------------------
:unquote
What's wrong with that?
Nothing IMO
If it's the last line, it's word-for-word what Mr Perry said to me right here
in this thread at 18.20 yesterday:
"I'm sure I said they weren't "intimate" in the usual meaning of that word >> (look it up in a dictionary, if that helps)."
Why hasn't action been taken to rein in his abuse?
As ULM is a discussion forum, the best answer to that IMO, if you
haven't already done so, would be to put your valid point again to
Mr Perry; regarding his seeming misunderstanding of the term "beneficial ownership". but in the simplest terms. Thus giving him that opportunity
to respond, which has been so unjustly denied him, by this somewhat capricious decision by an unknown moderator.
On 05/03/2026 10:53, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0susfFae81U1@mid.individual.net...
Just had yet another prissy rejection in ulm for 'abuse' for the following: >>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------
"On 04/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0q957FrresU5@mid.individual.net>, at 08:34:46 on Wed, 4Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
3 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:On 04/03/2026 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0nk6uFdu1nU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:25:02 on Tue,
drink the contents of the wine cellar, which at that stage belongs to the >>> estate not the survivor.On 03/03/2026 06:16, Roland Perry wrote:
50yrs a lodger and one week a wife.The word I originally used was "lodger".
Whereas it should have course have been 'widow'.
There's also the matter I hinted at some days ago: is it OK to
shuffles off.Not until the PR+Probate process has completed.
Yes of course it is. She is its beneficial owner.
Not so. As his widow, she is its beneficial owner as soon as he
residence.
No, because the house wasn't in joint names. Nor was it her primary
I'm sure I've told you that several times before.
And you're wrong.
You need to understand what beneficial ownership means.
(look it up in a dictionary, if that helps)"
------------------------------------------------------------------
:unquote
What's wrong with that?
Nothing IMO
If it's the last line, it's word-for-word what Mr Perry said to me right >>> here
in this thread at 18.20 yesterday:
"I'm sure I said they weren't "intimate" in the usual meaning of that word >>> (look it up in a dictionary, if that helps)."
Why hasn't action been taken to rein in his abuse?
As ULM is a discussion forum, the best answer to that IMO, if you
haven't already done so, would be to put your valid point again to
Mr Perry; regarding his seeming misunderstanding of the term "beneficial
ownership". but in the simplest terms. Thus giving him that opportunity
to respond, which has been so unjustly denied him, by this somewhat
capricious decision by an unknown moderator.
If he's actually interested, he can reply here.
He's made up his mind and no amount of facts will change it.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:n0tducFcokfU1@mid.individual.net...
On 05/03/2026 10:53, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:n0susfFae81U1@mid.individual.net...
Just had yet another prissy rejection in ulm for 'abuse' for the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------
"On 04/03/2026 18:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0q957FrresU5@mid.individual.net>, at 08:34:46 on Wed, 4Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
3 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:On 04/03/2026 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0nk6uFdu1nU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:25:02 on Tue,
drink the contents of the wine cellar, which at that stage belongs to theOn 03/03/2026 06:16, Roland Perry wrote:
50yrs a lodger and one week a wife.The word I originally used was "lodger".
Whereas it should have course have been 'widow'.
There's also the matter I hinted at some days ago: is it OK to
estate not the survivor.
shuffles off.Not until the PR+Probate process has completed.
Yes of course it is. She is its beneficial owner.
Not so. As his widow, she is its beneficial owner as soon as he
residence.
No, because the house wasn't in joint names. Nor was it her primary
I'm sure I've told you that several times before.
And you're wrong.
You need to understand what beneficial ownership means.
(look it up in a dictionary, if that helps)"
------------------------------------------------------------------
:unquote
What's wrong with that?
Nothing IMO
If it's the last line, it's word-for-word what Mr Perry said to me right >>>> here in this thread at 18.20 yesterday:
"I'm sure I said they weren't "intimate" in the usual meaning of that word >>>> (look it up in a dictionary, if that helps)."
Why hasn't action been taken to rein in his abuse?
As ULM is a discussion forum, the best answer to that IMO, if you
haven't already done so, would be to put your valid point again to
Mr Perry; regarding his seeming misunderstanding of the term "beneficial >>> ownership". but in the simplest terms. Thus giving him that opportunity
to respond, which has been so unjustly denied him, by this somewhat
capricious decision by an unknown moderator.
If he's actually interested, he can reply here.
But why should he ? And thus lay himself open to futher scurrilous attacks and accusations from you; as you have already made in respect of his intentions in respect of this widow ?
[SNIP]
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 13:15:50 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (11,196K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,448 |