Mr.Mcknowitall

It is not an argument, it is a discussion and (was) a very interesting one...until some point.

The point of which has been acknowledged., and I certainly concur.

The subject......

? So this is the crux of your position? That is it? I will try to remove this thorn. He was wrong. He was wrong because his position in the discussion was assuming it was not to win and to be mathematically precise, and was a failure to remain on course to satisfy the wants of other opinions that he is wrong. I am sure he would concur with this. Now, lets continue what was a pretty good discussion.

Mr. Vintage, relevance of expanding subject to other collecting venues. The discussion remains on course.

As was Mad Magazine, Mechanics Illustrated, Representatives of the U.S. Mint, Dept. of Treasury, The Govt. Printing Office.....even Littleton Stamp Company and ANA Representatives.

Sheesh.......

Now you are just being a bit silly. Pretty much anything you can think of was being "collected" worldwide, by kids. The number of kids that became "focused" and pursued their interests into adulthood were (and are) a minority. Comics focusing is not the limit of the discussion and is not needed to 'stay on course", IMHO

You have not correctly interpreted his position, and you are using this particular section of his"statement" as the foundation of your righteousness of rejection, and do so by using the "statement" out of context..

...and there were easily millions of coin and stamp collectors worldwide in my youth. How does either position negate the RMA position?

Actually, the descriptions and discussions to this point are any collecting interest/venue. Comic collectors are not any more special in the pursuit/habit/love of collecting interests than any other category of collecting.

That was happening long, long before. Very long before, by other means/individuals/entities. Mr. Lee did not special, in that regard.

And such as like virtually major religion in the world, but I digress. I recall you stating that in your experience, most comic book collectors are atheists. So, the analogy is a bit tongue in cheek (which is of course what you intended, but (there is always a "but") the rest of your post misses the position and intent of what RMA has stated. The rest of what you stated, while an opinion, is not really the crux of the 2 positions being discussed. it is your personal story. I don't get the .

Which country?

You just described coin collectors. What is missing from your position is: many children that "collected" when young, moved on to other things, and did not return until many years later. Sure, they kept an interest, stopping at this venue or that venue, or a passing social discussion that touched on the subject. But (there is always a "but") those early unguided fleeting pursuits were by no means the "collector" that you present. It was much more similar to what RMA presented, IMHO. When I was a kid, every department store sold coins and stamps. J.C. Penny, Sears, Monkey Ward, Zayres, etc. Peoples even sold stamps. guess what? Right along side comics. The majority of kids.....by an overwhelming margin....did not become the "collector" you describe. I received stamps/coins/albums/books as gifts from my parents, during my childhood "I want that" years. It stuck, for me, but not in the manner you present and certainly not in the interest level you present, and certainly not at the level you describe. I have to see the RMA position as a bit more convincing.

? And? That is a very convoluted analogy, to the point being discussed. Sort of: Titanic artifacts collectors are fixated on boats that sink.

Atoms exist. Can more be made? Can the number of existing atoms be reduced (read eliminated)? I think this is going to be a failed experiment.......

(that does not benefit from the appraisal). No.

4 of your replies (Thank You, BTW), if received by and transferred to you by your Barrister, get another barrister and start suing everybody. Suffice it to say, wherever you answered irrelevant, no reason, no flags, aren't relevant, and the status of last man standing reference when bought, I am of a complete difference of opinion, given the facts you have shared. From here on in, I will only converse by PM, per your request. You will most likely get pretty sick and tired of me.

I think my follow on questions were at the same time you were posting concerning my original questions, and thus I did not see your post re. private contact of any other questions. So, answer the follow-ons as you like, here or by Pm, or not at all. If nothing else, I hope I may have assisted in the thinking cap expanding a bit.

Thank you. I have one heck of a lot of questions, starting with suits against all property owners originally notified, all council members individually, your mortgage company, the researcher of your Deed and the Plat, and.....not being familiar with the barrister or his work/performance to date....if the barrister has not considered these counters.....the barrister. I will refrain, for now, from questioning further.

I have follow on questions: what is the status of property insurance coverage, both your home and the contested structure? Has there been a Title search, and a Plat review and if so, what do the documents reveal? The other homeowners (I guess 6, + any non-occupied lots)...what is the status of their property insurance/Plat review and Title search? What does the Deed state....yours and the other property owners? What do the mortgage documents state, yours and the other property owners? Have mortgage companies been notified...yours and the other property owners? Are you the latest purchaser of property in the dispute?

It may assist if some info and numbers are clarified. The Council informed the public in Dec.2013 that the Council would undertake the work. Did they state it would do so at the expense of the Council? The council confirmed this information to you in early 2014. Did they confirm they would pay? Is there an official document of nay nature that clearly states who/what entity will be paying? The link states there are 7 homes....all residents.... that received a Bill for a Report. The report states that the wall repair is 90,000.00? Is that total, or is it to be divided by 7? Are there any other unoccupied lots (meaning no houses) that belong to absent owners? The 3,000.00 present legal cost...is that divided by 7, or is that the share for each of the 7 homes? The projected 12,000.00 legal cost to get to the Nov. trial date......is that divided by 7, or is that the hare for each of the 7 homes? Is the barrister representing all families, or just you?

Or Appraiser. One can have both an Appraiser (that does not benefit from the Appraisal) and an Executor.

My first concern would be the tax filing status. Was the gentleman operating as corp., an individual filing Schedule C, Sole Proprietor, LLC or..... Is there a tax liability? Is there a Will? I certainly understand the "right thing to do" economically, and to help someone in time of need if able to, but (there is always a "but", it can come back as a business problem. I would lean toward the ".....have your legal representative contact me, and if I can be of assistance, I certainly will be pleased to do so..." avenue. That is just me, though. I have seen this scenario many times. I prefer the legal representative route.