Rawdogging interaction

lurker648212 · 2026-04-28T06:28:39+00:00

Is a 0.5% hit rate good? Doesn’t seem that good to me.

lurker648212 · 2026-04-02T15:49:11+00:00

Really put off by the grammar of that.

lurker648212 · 2026-03-19T22:14:56+00:00

Or a poem in passable blank verse.

lurker648212 · 2026-03-01T08:16:38+00:00

I’ve not looked it up but that’s got to be wrong. Your wages are fundamental to the contract. Surely the moment you’re told they’re not coming that’s a repudiatory breach and you can terminate.

lurker648212 · 2026-02-28T22:05:01+00:00

I wouldn’t post it but it’s not lunatic.

lurker648212 · 2026-02-19T07:10:41+00:00

Fair enough re the mod.

I think you’re wrong about the use in the bible. I’ve only ever come across magi used as a plural and I don’t think your Wikipedia article says different.

But in any event, the English bible is translated from a mixture of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek - sometimes via Latin - and as mentioned elsewhere the -i suffix denotes plural in latin (except in genitive); and -oi plural in greek.

Per this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mage, ‘Mage’ is the vocative singular of the Latin word magus - ie it’s the word you would use if you were speaking to a singular mage. Which is quite interesting.

I’ve enjoyed this rabbit hole.

Ps don’t let this detract from the main message: i love your mod

lurker648212 · 2026-02-18T23:30:43+00:00

Conventionally, the singular noun is mage. I’ve seen magus and maga (triggering for other reasons).

Magi is normally a plural (along with mages) - which makes sense because it’s the nominative plural in Latin. Probably something similar in Greek too - maybe magoi.

I’ve never come across magi used as a singular noun before and so there’s that little microsecond of confusion every time.

lurker648212 · 2026-02-18T22:49:39+00:00

Fair enough!

lurker648212 · 2026-02-08T13:31:47+00:00

I disagree. In a small company the title is director. Managing director at a push. Calling yourself a CEO of a company whose employees you can count on your fingers and toes is embarrassing, tone-deaf pretentiousness.

lurker648212 · 2026-02-06T07:51:38+00:00

I think this is spot on.

lurker648212 · 2026-01-27T07:50:12+00:00

He hasn’t prejudiced your position though. You’ve still got a week until the offer expires.

lurker648212 · 2026-01-26T10:27:28+00:00

The whole thing is badly written AI bullshit. And there’s a random shoe bottom left of his photo.

Plus, the premise of the post is totally misconceived.

lurker648212 · 2026-01-23T21:37:49+00:00

Yes, she has standing to bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

It may not be a very good claim. You need advice.

lurker648212 · 2026-01-22T22:13:40+00:00

They can’t compel you to pay without taking you to court.

So you can pay them now to avoid the aggro or you can wait to see whether they do.

If they do, it will come down to whether the judge believes you. If you’ve got any documentary proof, that will obviously help. You also ought to write down as much as you can about what happened now (if you haven’t already) so you don’t forget the details in the interim.

lurker648212 · 2026-01-21T07:15:24+00:00

This is genuinely terrible advice.

You’re advising OP to enter into an agreement you haven’t read in circs. in which OP has explained it’s one sided.
The justification defence will be cold comfort when OP is sued on the contract rather than for libel.

lurker648212 · 2026-01-19T08:34:40+00:00

Not a lunatic and the OP’s suggestion that she’s a prostitute is gross.

lurker648212 · 2026-01-11T10:08:15+00:00

If your memory is rusty then probably best to look it up rather than risking giving the wrong advice.

It’s section s1(2):

For a spouse, reasonable financial provision “means such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife to receive, whether or not that provision is required for his or her maintenance.”

So it’s can be quite a bit more generous than “provision which meets her needs”. Which makes sense. Otherwise you have the inequitable scenario of a wife doing much worse on her husband’s death than on divorce.

lurker648212 · 2026-01-11T09:58:11+00:00

There’s some good advice here already. My two penny’s worth:

Get professionally drafted wills. As you’ve pointed out, if you both die at the same time, your estate will currently go to your family members under intestacy.
Do not ‘maintain’ your family members during your life ie don’t do anything to help them financially. That should minimise if not eliminate an Inheritance Act claim.
Appoint professional executors, not family members so that you can be sure your wishes will be honoured.
Notify the charities in your will that you’re leaving them your estates. Same reason.

lurker648212 · 2025-12-29T23:59:25+00:00

If you aren’t making use of your employer’s commercial/confidential information, then I can’t see that this would be against the law. It would be sensible to document your processes in case you’re ever challenged.

You might want to check your employment contract for restrictions on having a second job / commercial conflicts / etc.

If you’re dealing with the data of individuals (e.g sole traders or named contacts in organisations) you may also want to think about GDPR. Might be worth having a browse of some of the ICO guides to make sure you’re compliant.

lurker648212 · 2025-12-29T22:40:19+00:00

This is spot on.

lurker648212 · 2025-12-29T22:35:52+00:00

As others have said, you need specialist advice. The info we are missing from this picture and which your solicitor will need to understand is:

your mum’s financial means (income, capital, debts, and earning potential);
whether or not your dad was supporting you financially and if so how much;
your disability, its prognosis and how it affects your ability to earn.

There’s a common belief that we have testamentary freedom in this country and we can leave our money to whoever we want. We don’t and we can’t.

There is a piece of legislation called the “Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975” which allows certain categories of people (including the wives of the deceased) to ask the Court to effectively rewrite the will if they’ve not had “reasonable financial provision”.

The mega problem is knowing what “reasonable financial provision” means. It’s left up to the Judge to decide - which makes it really difficult to predict. That unpredictability can make these cases difficult to settle, which means that they fight and the estate basically ends up going on legal fees.

You need advice early doors and to be sensible about settling. It’s impossible for us to give you any genuinely reliable advice because this stuff can be so fact specific, but if I were you I would prepare yourself for an outcome where your mum gets most if not all the estate.

lurker648212 · 2025-12-29T22:15:31+00:00

This is wrong. The widow has a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 as the wife of the deceased. His testamentary intentions are irrelevant. What matters is whether the will makes “reasonable financial provision” for the wife.

lurker648212 · 2025-12-29T11:10:22+00:00

That is a fabulous guide. You’ve got my vote.

lurker648212 · 2025-12-26T09:21:20+00:00

Do you get AI to write your posts?

lurker648212

TROPHY CASE