Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155734 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-01 13:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 12:05 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-02 04:41 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 11:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 17:14 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 15:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 18:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:24 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:12 -0700
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 16:56 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 14:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 23:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-04 07:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 16:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:41 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:37 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:11 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 16:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 16:23 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-03 17:30 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-06 19:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 21:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 22:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 15:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-02 00:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 06:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:34 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:28 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:00 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-17 08:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 11:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 12:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 18:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 18:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 15:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 19:23 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:58 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 15:53 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 11:26 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:24 +0100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:06 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-08 10:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:42 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 07:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-09 11:55 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:40 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:13 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-09 13:36 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-09 15:30 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-08 10:43 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 22:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 12:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:29 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 10:03 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 21:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:22 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 10:14 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-13 18:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 07:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 13:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:51 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:01 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 13:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-08 20:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-08 20:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:31 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-09 12:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:31 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-09 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 11:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 17:08 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:43 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 09:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 12:28 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 10:58 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:19 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 18:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 21:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 22:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:58 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 14:01 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-11 17:28 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:29 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:30 +0100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 10:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 19:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:08 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-04 14:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 17:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 01:27 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 11:18 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-13 19:05 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 20:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-14 14:09 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 09:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 17:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 09:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-15 17:44 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 12:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 12:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-19 15:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 19:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:44 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-15 15:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-16 08:58 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 23:51 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 16:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 17:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 08:03 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 08:29 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 03:38 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 02:11 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:22 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 05:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:00 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-18 03:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 04:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 16:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 11:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 18:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-16 17:23 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 20:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-16 14:53 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 05:43 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:19 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 19:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 22:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 16:12 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 12:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-17 10:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-17 15:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 05:14 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-16 14:09 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 15:19 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 14:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 05:17 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-14 13:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-05 04:44 -0400
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 11:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 17:04 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 15:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:31 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:06 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:11 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 20:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:43 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:21 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:10 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:26 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:57 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:46 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 13:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:35 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:15 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 19:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 12:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 21:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:51 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:35 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 07:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:39 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:42 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 19:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 12:35 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 20:54 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 23:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:38 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-07 07:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 21:47 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 12:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 08:12 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 13:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 08:15 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:29 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:52 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:34 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:39 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 20:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:37 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:25 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-02 21:35 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-03 15:17 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 05:09 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-01-02 07:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:44 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 13:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-02 09:11 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-02 11:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000
Page 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 05:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160117054353.ff31f2ebdc1562cfbbbf3988@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156763 |
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:53:20 -0800 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:55:40 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > [snip] > > > We were looking at one place going for an excellent price (one we > >could afford!) when the market was pretty much rock bottom. We went to > >make an offer for it only to be told that it was off the market > >temporarily while some paperwork was sorted out, it should be OK in a > >week or two. Another agent told us that the place was never going to be > >sold as it had been through a number of hands during the boom without > >all the proper traces and validations being done and now all the > >relevant paperwork was lost among several agents and solicitors none of > >whom were still in business, and in some cases had left the country > >without clearing up their bankrupt affairs. Apparently this was not an > >uncommon situation. > > How does such a situation get cleared up? Anyone answering, > please state which country you are answering for. I have no idea, AFAICT here it is not getting cleared up as yet and is likely to remain as derelict and half built properties with no clear owner. As long as they're not fit to live in there's no taxes to pay and as long as there's room to build more with clear ownership it's not too much of a problem (our low population density helps a lot here). -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 19:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3104af6ae790fd9f989e0c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156757 |
In article <20160116205540.f3a10b72c36cd86b93399d76@eircom.net>, steveo@eircom.net says... > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:01:52 -0500 > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The original salesman doesn't have any real relevance unless he he had a > > financial interest other than his commission. There should be a > > contract somewhere, with what is owed to who under what circumstance > > spelled out in the contract. > > Ome of the classes of problems resulting from the Celtic Tiger boom > and subsequent bust is that during the boom there was a lot of "we'll sort > out the paperwork later, just pass over the money and your good to go" > going on. With the bust many of the parties involved in chains of deals of > one kind or another went bust and paperwork that may or may not have > existed can no longer be found. > > We were looking at one place going for an excellent price (one we > could afford!) when the market was pretty much rock bottom. We went to make > an offer for it only to be told that it was off the market temporarily while > some paperwork was sorted out, it should be OK in a week or two. Another > agent told us that the place was never going to be sold as it had been > through a number of hands during the boom without all the proper traces and > validations being done and now all the relevant paperwork was lost among > several agents and solicitors none of whom were still in business, and in > some cases had left the country without clearing up their bankrupt affairs. > Apparently this was not an uncommon situation. That's not good. On the other hand if the bank can't produce a valid contract then I wouldn't expect the courts to be willing to award them anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50523483.474732388.256364.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156757 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:01:52 -0500 > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The original salesman doesn't have any real relevance unless he he had a >> financial interest other than his commission. There should be a >> contract somewhere, with what is owed to who under what circumstance >> spelled out in the contract. > > Ome of the classes of problems resulting from the Celtic Tiger boom > and subsequent bust is that during the boom there was a lot of "we'll sort > out the paperwork later, just pass over the money and your good to go" > going on. With the bust many of the parties involved in chains of deals of > one kind or another went bust and paperwork that may or may not have > existed can no longer be found. > > We were looking at one place going for an excellent price (one we > could afford!) when the market was pretty much rock bottom. We went to make > an offer for it only to be told that it was off the market temporarily while > some paperwork was sorted out, it should be OK in a week or two. Another > agent told us that the place was never going to be sold as it had been > through a number of hands during the boom without all the proper traces and > validations being done and now all the relevant paperwork was lost among > several agents and solicitors none of whom were still in business, and in > some cases had left the country without clearing up their bankrupt affairs. > Apparently this was not an uncommon situation. > Some agency or entity should have been established to sell the property and put the money in escrow. Then, when, or if, the paperwork got sorted out the money could have been distributed. It would have been better for both the market and the profits to get the property sold quickly rather than let it sit vacant to decay or be vandalized. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 14:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <IdCdnbDXJMrbOwbLnZ2dnUU78c-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156822 |
On 17/01/2016 14:22, Peter Flass wrote:
{Snip}
>
> Some agency or entity should have been established to sell the property and
> put the money in escrow. Then, when, or if, the paperwork got sorted out
> the money could have been distributed. It would have been better for both
> the market and the profits to get the property sold quickly rather than let
> it sit vacant to decay or be vandalized.
>
Such an agency can still be set up. There is already an agency that
handles the property of orphans until they grow up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160117151931.761616fedd8245759edc175b@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156825 |
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:33:42 +0000
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 17/01/2016 14:22, Peter Flass wrote:
> {Snip}
>
> >
> > Some agency or entity should have been established to sell the property
> > and put the money in escrow. Then, when, or if, the paperwork got
> > sorted out the money could have been distributed. It would have been
> > better for both the market and the profits to get the property sold
> > quickly rather than let it sit vacant to decay or be vandalized.
> >
> Such an agency can still be set up. There is already an agency that
> handles the property of orphans until they grow up.
First problem is determing whose property it actually is.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 19:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <-sGdnfCj-YKQdgbLnZ2dnUU78cMAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156831 |
On 17/01/2016 15:19, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:33:42 +0000
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/01/2016 14:22, Peter Flass wrote:
>> {Snip}
>>
>>>
>>> Some agency or entity should have been established to sell the property
>>> and put the money in escrow. Then, when, or if, the paperwork got
>>> sorted out the money could have been distributed. It would have been
>>> better for both the market and the profits to get the property sold
>>> quickly rather than let it sit vacant to decay or be vandalized.
>>>
>> Such an agency can still be set up. There is already an agency that
>> handles the property of orphans until they grow up.
>
> First problem is determing whose property it actually is.
>
No that is the last problem. The government trustee just runs the land.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 15:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160117150036.e75b0f2f0dacf63054883fca@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156822 |
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:22:06 -0500 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > We were looking at one place going for an excellent price (one > > we could afford!) when the market was pretty much rock bottom. We went > > to make an offer for it only to be told that it was off the market > > temporarily while some paperwork was sorted out, it should be OK in a > > week or two. Another agent told us that the place was never going to be > > sold as it had been through a number of hands during the boom without > > all the proper traces and validations being done and now all the > > relevant paperwork was lost among several agents and solicitors none of > > whom were still in business, and in some cases had left the country > > without clearing up their bankrupt affairs. Apparently this was not an > > uncommon situation. > > > > Some agency or entity should have been established to sell the property > and put the money in escrow. Then, when, or if, the paperwork got sorted > out the money could have been distributed. Provided the paperwork did resolve to there being an entity with clear title to the property in the first place. That was one of the checks that wasn't getting done (along with verifying boundaries against the land registry). Given the way the market was at the peak most of them probably changed hands, without proper checks, several times with the paperwork chasing the transactions and lagging by months or years. > It would have been better for > both the market and the profits to get the property sold quickly rather > than let it sit vacant to decay or be vandalized. Yes it would, but in a situation where there are far more properties up for sale than there are buyers it's much easier just to sell something that has clear title and put dealing with the mess on the long finger (probably hoping that someone else will deal with it). Several of the properties (with perfectly good paperwork) that we looked at then are still for sale today, some four years later, so I doubt anyone is in a hurry to sort out the dubious ones. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1271348676.474668872.992695.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156742 |
<mausg@mail.com> wrote: > On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>> >>>> The trustee must have access to the trust's funds in order to do his >>>> job; that's why they're usually required to itemize everything they do, >>>> which for any non-trivial trust will be audited by a third party. >>>> >>>> Fees paid to the trustee get itemized separately; for ones like this, >>>> that's typically a flat 1-2% of net asset value per year specified in >>>> the trust's construction. Beware any trust that allows the trustee to >>>> increase his own compensation via "transaction fees", "expenses", etc. >>> >>> >>> This seems to me like a pretty rarefied discussion. I have a vague idea of >>> setting up a trust for someone else, an heir for example, who is young, >>> incompetent or has bad judgment. Are there other reasons for having a trust? >>> I have a sinking feeling that if I won a certain kind of some huge legal >>> suit, a trust would be created for me to give everyone involved (except me) >>> a warm, happy glow. >>> >>> I note that the 1% charge per year is 20 times the cost of the Vanguard >>> Amazon 500 Index fund. And I assume the trustee pays someone else to do the >>> actual work so he just pre-skims the base before doing anything especially >>> useful for most ordinary people. >>> >>> >> >> We set up a trust and put our house and condo in it. If either of us needs >> long-term care this will keep the government's hands off of it. >> Unfortunately we just did it recently, so we have to stay healthy for a few >> years. We're the trustees so no fee. The kind of legal settlement you're >> talking about is, I think, a "structured settlement". I'm always seeing >> ads by companies who will buy you out of these, guving you a lump sum but >> taking a big hunk themselves. >> > > I've thought of that myself, BUT: > > A person on local radio last week described how her mother, at the end > of the housing boom here, availed of an offer that was common at that time, > and got 180,000 roughly from the bank/whatever to live on, the bank to take > over the house on her death. Now that lady has to move in with her married > daughter, being over 90. The bank wants to take over her house, but house > prices haven fallen, now want 300,000 from someone (Whatever the house makes > , less (interest on 180,000)). Logic is a little fuzzy here, but my meaning > should be clear. The original salesman can not be found, even besides that, > financial wheezes like that are statute barred after 7 years here. > > The same deal was proposed to me, but I understood that it was sort of a bet, > the bank betting that I wwould be dead before (x) years. > > It seems that it is really (heads I lose, tails you win). T'was ever so. > > That's a "reverse mortgage". Fonzie (Henry Winkler) is shilling for these on TV. I thought: 1. You can live in the house until you die 2. The bank has to absorb the loss of value. Always seemed like a bad deal to me too, but I suppose if you're poor and need money to live on it's better than the alternative of selling your house outright. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 22:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7f6b3$n0u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156754 |
On 16-Jan-16 14:32, Peter Flass wrote: > <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >> A person on local radio last week described how her mother, at the >> end of the housing boom here, availed of an offer that was common >> at that time, and got 180,000 roughly from the bank/whatever to >> live on, the bank to take over the house on her death. ... >> >> The same deal was proposed to me, but I understood that it was >> sort of a bet, the bank betting that I wwould be dead before (x) >> years. >> >> It seems that it is really (heads I lose, tails you win). T'was >> ever so. > > That's a "reverse mortgage". No, it's not. A reverse mortgage is essentially a home equity loan; instead of you paying your mortgage every month and the balance going down, a reverse mortgage pays _you_ every month and the balance goes _up_ until either you die or you run out of equity to borrow. What is described above is a life estate; that's a common practice for retirees in Rightpondia but quite rare in Leftpondia. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 16:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg0m5pFfc41U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156782 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:n7f6b3$n0u$1@dont-email.me... > On 16-Jan-16 14:32, Peter Flass wrote: >> <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >>> A person on local radio last week described how her mother, at the >>> end of the housing boom here, availed of an offer that was common >>> at that time, and got 180,000 roughly from the bank/whatever to >>> live on, the bank to take over the house on her death. ... >>> >>> The same deal was proposed to me, but I understood that it was >>> sort of a bet, the bank betting that I wwould be dead before (x) >>> years. >>> >>> It seems that it is really (heads I lose, tails you win). T'was >>> ever so. >> >> That's a "reverse mortgage". > > No, it's not. A reverse mortgage is essentially a home equity loan; > instead of you paying your mortgage every month and the balance going > down, a reverse mortgage pays _you_ every month and the balance goes > _up_ until either you die or you run out of equity to borrow. You don’t ever run out of equity, the lender gets to wear the fact that you live a lot longer than they hoped you would. > What is described above is a life estate; that's a common practice for > retirees in Rightpondia but quite rare in Leftpondia. It isnt that common in Rightpondia or anywhere else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 11:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn9muu0.1af.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156754 |
On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: ><mausg@mail.com> wrote: >> On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> >> > > That's a "reverse mortgage". Fonzie (Henry Winkler) is shilling for these > on TV. I thought: > 1. You can live in the house until you die > 2. The bank has to absorb the loss of value. > > Always seemed like a bad deal to me too, but I suppose if you're poor and > need money to live on it's better than the alternative of selling your > house outright. > > Exactly. The State here has a scheme, they take over your assets, and they pay your retirement home costs. Fairer. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 12:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160117120644.ea67f678c92e46ab9b516480@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156803 |
On 17 Jan 2016 11:32:20 GMT mausg@mail.com wrote: > On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > ><mausg@mail.com> wrote: > >> On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: > >> > >> > > > > That's a "reverse mortgage". Fonzie (Henry Winkler) is shilling for > > these on TV. I thought: > > 1. You can live in the house until you die > > 2. The bank has to absorb the loss of value. > > > > Always seemed like a bad deal to me too, but I suppose if you're poor > > and need money to live on it's better than the alternative of selling > > your house outright. > > > > > Exactly. The State here has a scheme, they take over your assets, and > they pay your retirement home costs. Fairer. That's a good scheme, it applies even if you're only asset is a state pension - and then they don't even take it all. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2077126313.474732811.683660.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156813 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 17 Jan 2016 11:32:20 GMT > mausg@mail.com wrote: > >> On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> >>> That's a "reverse mortgage". Fonzie (Henry Winkler) is shilling for >>> these on TV. I thought: >>> 1. You can live in the house until you die >>> 2. The bank has to absorb the loss of value. >>> >>> Always seemed like a bad deal to me too, but I suppose if you're poor >>> and need money to live on it's better than the alternative of selling >>> your house outright. >>> >>> >> Exactly. The State here has a scheme, they take over your assets, and >> they pay your retirement home costs. Fairer. > > That's a good scheme, it applies even if you're only asset is a > state pension - and then they don't even take it all. > That's what Medicaid, or whatever it's called in your state, does in the US. They take all your assets and pay your expenses in a nursing home for life. It's the taking all your assets that a trust protects against. We went thru this with my wife's grandparents. They didn't have much, but by the time the state was done they had nothing. We had tried to tell them that they needed to do something to protect their money, but they weren't interested. We don't have much either, but we swore that we'd try to save something for the kids. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n7gaec$30s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156823 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> On 17 Jan 2016 11:32:20 GMT >> mausg@mail.com wrote: >> >>> On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's a "reverse mortgage". Fonzie (Henry Winkler) is shilling for >>>> these on TV. I thought: >>>> 1. You can live in the house until you die >>>> 2. The bank has to absorb the loss of value. >>>> >>>> Always seemed like a bad deal to me too, but I suppose if you're poor >>>> and need money to live on it's better than the alternative of selling >>>> your house outright. >>>> >>>> >>> Exactly. The State here has a scheme, they take over your assets, and >>> they pay your retirement home costs. Fairer. >> >> That's a good scheme, it applies even if you're only asset is a >> state pension - and then they don't even take it all. > > That's what Medicaid, or whatever it's called in your state, does in the > US. They take all your assets and pay your expenses in a nursing home for > life. It's the taking all your assets that a trust protects against. We > went thru this with my wife's grandparents. They didn't have much, but by > the time the state was done they had nothing. We had tried to tell them > that they needed to do something to protect their money, but they weren't > interested. We don't have much either, but we swore that we'd try to save > something for the kids. Perhaps they thought they should be responsible for their own expenses. Seems like the right thing to do to me. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000529892292F247@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156803 |
mausg@mail.com wrote: > On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >><mausg@mail.com> wrote: >>> On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>> >>> >> >> That's a "reverse mortgage". Fonzie (Henry Winkler) is shilling for these >> on TV. I thought: >> 1. You can live in the house until you die >> 2. The bank has to absorb the loss of value. >> >> Always seemed like a bad deal to me too, but I suppose if you're poor and >> need money to live on it's better than the alternative of selling your >> house outright. >> >> > Exactly. The State here has a scheme, they take over your assets, and > they pay your retirement home costs. Fairer. Medicaid recovers their costs that way. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 05:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg24n0FqvtmU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156829 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM000529892292F247@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... > mausg@mail.com wrote: >> On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>><mausg@mail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> >>> That's a "reverse mortgage". Fonzie (Henry Winkler) is shilling for >>> these >>> on TV. I thought: >>> 1. You can live in the house until you die >>> 2. The bank has to absorb the loss of value. >>> >>> Always seemed like a bad deal to me too, but I suppose if you're poor >>> and >>> need money to live on it's better than the alternative of selling your >>> house outright. >>> >>> >> Exactly. The State here has a scheme, they take over your assets, and >> they pay your retirement home costs. Fairer. > > Medicaid recovers their costs that way. Doesn’t come even close to covering their costs that way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 15:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7h1g2$218$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156742 |
On 16-Jan-16 10:33, mausg@mail.com wrote: > On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> We set up a trust and put our house and condo in it. If either of >> us needs long-term care this will keep the government's hands off >> of it. > > I've thought of that myself, BUT: > > A person on local radio last week described how her mother, at the > end of the housing boom here, availed of an offer that was common at > that time, and got 180,000 roughly from the bank/whatever to live on, > the bank to take over the house on her death. Essentially, she sold the fee simple estate to the bank, and they sold her back a life estate; the bank is the remainderman. The difference in value of the two was apparently 180k. She could have used that money to purchase a life annuity from an insurance company, which would have provided her an income until she died. > Now that lady has to move in with her married daughter, being over > 90. The bank wants to take over her house, Nope. The life estate remains intact until she dies, whether she lives there or not. However, if she's not, she _could_ sell the life estate to someone else, though few people would be interested in buying a home only until the seller dies. The most likely buyer would be a landlord who would rent it out, and she could do the same herself--and get some extra income in the meantime. > The same deal was proposed to me, but I understood that it was sort > of a bet, the bank betting that I wwould be dead before (x) years. Yes, essentially. Same with life annuities. > It seems that it is really (heads I lose, tails you win). T'was ever > so. Everyone loses (i.e. dies) in the end. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052973D9FC698C@aca404fd.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156694 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <6tWdnbjxzYFrsgTLnZ2dnUU78UudnZ2d@giganews.com>, > Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>On 15/01/2016 14:51, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>> On 13-Jan-16 20:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>>> One exception would be during a transition from employer pensions to >>>>> trust pensions, since the most logical way to do that would be for the >>>>> employer to fund the trust with newly-issued equities representing its >>>>> existing obligations. However, I would expect the trusts to then swap >>>>> equities around so that they were all properly diversified. >>>> >>>> Oops; that should have been "securities", not "equities". >>>> >>>> I'd think bonds would generally be more appropriate, but there may be >>>> cases where stocks could be acceptable, e.g. when issuing enough bonds >>>> would itself put the employer at risk of bankruptcy. >>>> >>>> Note that moving to trust pensions also puts those assets out of the >>>> reach of corporate raiders (or corrupt execs), which radically reduces >>>> the odds of the employer going bankrupt in the first place! >>> >>> And then the companies in charge of those trusts go bankrupt. >>> >>> /BAH >>> >> >>Preventing the trust managers from spending the money on themselves is >>important. > > Don't ever give them spending access to the trust. > > Billing, yes. Direct spending; no. they "spend" it with the investments they buy. Churning is one way to acquire money. Pensions are also handled by insurance companies. The pension cash of a company is transformed into insurance policies. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 15:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <440qmc-03u.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156736 |
In article <PM00052973D9FC698C@aca404fd.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <6tWdnbjxzYFrsgTLnZ2dnUU78UudnZ2d@giganews.com>, >> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>On 15/01/2016 14:51, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>>> On 13-Jan-16 20:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>>>> One exception would be during a transition from employer pensions to >>>>>> trust pensions, since the most logical way to do that would be for the >>>>>> employer to fund the trust with newly-issued equities representing its >>>>>> existing obligations. However, I would expect the trusts to then swap >>>>>> equities around so that they were all properly diversified. >>>>> >>>>> Oops; that should have been "securities", not "equities". >>>>> >>>>> I'd think bonds would generally be more appropriate, but there may be >>>>> cases where stocks could be acceptable, e.g. when issuing enough bonds >>>>> would itself put the employer at risk of bankruptcy. >>>>> >>>>> Note that moving to trust pensions also puts those assets out of the >>>>> reach of corporate raiders (or corrupt execs), which radically reduces >>>>> the odds of the employer going bankrupt in the first place! >>>> >>>> And then the companies in charge of those trusts go bankrupt. >>>> >>>> /BAH >>>> >>> >>>Preventing the trust managers from spending the money on themselves is >>>important. >> >> Don't ever give them spending access to the trust. >> >> Billing, yes. Direct spending; no. > >they "spend" it with the investments they buy. Churning is one >way to acquire money. No. The investments may carry commision; usually 0.7%; or they may be done by some index fund that charge .. 0%. The commision is what makes the brokers live. You don't have to provide that livelyhood to them. You cannot, long term, influence what the individual shares and bonds do; but you can influence the mix, and what this divide between stocks and bonds is. And use the business cycles to generate some extra profit. You dont have to pay commisions to brokers for this. >Pensions are also handled by insurance companies. The pension cash >of a company is transformed into insurance policies. Same story. They feed the brokers. They do stockpicking. But they stay put in the share-bond divide. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-15 19:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160115192947.aa80ba9313212f4d5c53246c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156689 |
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:44:48 +0000 Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > Preventing the trust managers from spending the money on themselves is > important. That I believe is the 'trust' part of the whole thing, if you're not going to manage it personally then you have to trust someone to do it. Trusts have been around for a long time, abuses are rare enough to make news. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web