On Saturday, 2 July 2016 08:13:09 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
And no abuse whatsoever. We disagreed. I disagree with many and I don't give up on that disagreement if I feel the other party is wrong. Same with you and you disintegrated into the most foul-mouthed abuse when you couldn't cope.

You are clearly a liar. Apologise.


This your reply to Mike Tullett:

PS I detest vultures on the Internet Mike. They are the worst type of
coward. They roost in self-proclaimed morally high trees, taking next
to no part in any of the discussion but descending when they think it
is safe to peck at a percieved mistake from a body, saying that their
hoped-for meal is this way, or that way, wrong. Unfortunately for you,
this meal is a long way from being dead. At least Lawrence tries to
say his piece and argue his daft case for Global Cooling. That
positions him a fair way above you, but still well towards the bottom
of the pecking order.

Have neither you, nor the little boy hanging onto your coat tails and
trying his best to come up with something clever and witty, never
heard of sun-cream, or short exposure? Or would you both sit out for a
long time without protection around the middle of the day and burn? I
don't think my fair skin would stand that. The lobsters in the Med
would find you both fine company, I'm sure.


No abuse there, not a whiff of it. Good heavens, no. Pure scientific disagreement. As an afterthought, once you'd got the bile out of your system, you mentioned suncream but crucially there was no mention of it in your original post which is why Mike and others reacted the way they did. They simply reacted with incredulity to what you wrote, as I remember doing at the time, thinking I should ask him if he's African, this being the only rational physical explanation. You'd cocked up, so he who pointed this out must suffer.

Tudor Hughes

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:46:50 PM UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 08:13:09 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
And no abuse whatsoever. We disagreed. I disagree with many and I don't give up on that disagreement if I feel the other party is wrong. Same with you and you disintegrated into the most foul-mouthed abuse when you couldn't cope.

You are clearly a liar. Apologise.

No. But thank you for trimming your posts at long last you liar.

Obsessed.

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 1:09:05 PM UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 02:22:22 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:

The entire thread can be viewed he

http://www.weather-banter.co.uk/uk-s...-theworld.html

People can form their own opinion of what you term "disagreement". The naughty bits start on page 2. Now, where's that sun-cream?

Bone brain:
Was today's weather as good as it gets anywhere, anytime, in the world?
On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:13:11 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish wrote in

It was possible to sunbathe between 1200-1400hrs without getting
burned.

Mike Tullett
Your lack of real scientific knowledge is exemplified by that sentence.
***
After Dawlish calling Mike Tullet a vulture for no reason he had pointed out that not getting sunburned being possible in the early afternoon in the UK is a mark of Dawlish's experience

Talking of mistakes
Graham Easterling[_2_]
I'm still waiting for your comeback, Mr Tullet after

It starts to get somewhat hazy after that.

Obsessed.

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 19:04:19 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:41:27 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 17:09:53 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 08:13:09 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
And no abuse whatsoever. We disagreed. I disagree with many and I don't give up on that disagreement if I feel the other party is wrong. Same with you and you disintegrated into the most foul-mouthed abuse when you couldn't cope.

You are clearly a liar. Apologise.


This your reply to Mike Tullett:

PS I detest vultures on the Internet Mike. They are the worst type of
coward. They roost in self-proclaimed morally high trees, taking next
to no part in any of the discussion but descending when they think it
is safe to peck at a percieved mistake from a body, saying that their
hoped-for meal is this way, or that way, wrong. Unfortunately for you,
this meal is a long way from being dead. At least Lawrence tries to
say his piece and argue his daft case for Global Cooling. That
positions him a fair way above you, but still well towards the bottom
of the pecking order.

Have neither you, nor the little boy hanging onto your coat tails and
trying his best to come up with something clever and witty, never
heard of sun-cream, or short exposure? Or would you both sit out for a
long time without protection around the middle of the day and burn? I
don't think my fair skin would stand that. The lobsters in the Med
would find you both fine company, I'm sure.


No abuse there, not a whiff of it. Good heavens, no. Pure scientific disagreement. As an afterthought, once you'd got the bile out of your system, you mentioned suncream but crucially there was no mention of it in your original post which is why Mike and others reacted the way they did. They simply reacted with incredulity to what you wrote, as I remember doing at the time, thinking I should ask him if he's African, this being the only rational physical explanation. You'd cocked up, so he who pointed this out must suffer.

Tudor Hughes

Unbelievable hypocrisy, its almost as if there's a split personality at work and Dawlish is attacking himself as his own behaviour which was a million miles away from Mike's, but uncannily like his own.

What gets me is he is so hateful and resentful -almost like manic jealousy . For example when he spat

"Have neither you, nor the little boy hanging onto your coat tails and
trying his best to come up with something clever and witty, never
heard of sun-cream, or short exposure"

"Little boys" It almost as if wants to be loved , admired and respected with a group of people that will jump to his aid when criticised but he isn't because he is so obnoxious so he has to belittle anyone that supported Mikes position and he does that by sneering "little boys".


I can't remember all the thread so I might read it again. Trouble is for all the nastiness and aggressiveness (I'm just as guilty ) You can't take back what's been said. To be honest there many that can have their moments but even with Dawlish who exasperates me on occasion its all water under the bridge after a few days. He however needs to at least once own up to his own faults instead of digging in and making himself look nastier then at first perceived and that is a very difficult thing to do. The Mike incident though is very clear cut indeed as Mike had no known enemies on this NG and when he was moved to say something negative he had to be sorely pushed as I believe no one had witnessed Mike be critical before and boy when he politely pointed out to Dawlish his mistake did he touch a nerve.

Racist

I hate fascist and that's why I don't like you.

Noticed Paul has posted on Bruce's google group forum with a post titled "Here" and a single comment of "watching"....... ???????

Un-nerving! Lol!!

Strange introduction...

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 19:06:03 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:09:53 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 08:13:09 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
And no abuse whatsoever. We disagreed. I disagree with many and I don't give up on that disagreement if I feel the other party is wrong. Same with you and you disintegrated into the most foul-mouthed abuse when you couldn't cope.

You are clearly a liar. Apologise.


This your reply to Mike Tullett:

PS I detest vultures on the Internet Mike. They are the worst type of
coward. They roost in self-proclaimed morally high trees, taking next
to no part in any of the discussion but descending when they think it
is safe to peck at a percieved mistake from a body, saying that their
hoped-for meal is this way, or that way, wrong. Unfortunately for you,
this meal is a long way from being dead. At least Lawrence tries to
say his piece and argue his daft case for Global Cooling. That
positions him a fair way above you, but still well towards the bottom
of the pecking order.

Have neither you, nor the little boy hanging onto your coat tails and
trying his best to come up with something clever and witty, never
heard of sun-cream, or short exposure? Or would you both sit out for a
long time without protection around the middle of the day and burn? I
don't think my fair skin would stand that. The lobsters in the Med
would find you both fine company, I'm sure.


No abuse there, not a whiff of it. Good heavens, no. Pure scientific disagreement. As an afterthought, once you'd got the bile out of your system, you mentioned suncream but crucially there was no mention of it in your original post which is why Mike and others reacted the way they did. They simply reacted with incredulity to what you wrote, as I remember doing at the time, thinking I should ask him if he's African, this being the only rational physical explanation. You'd cocked up, so he who pointed this out must suffer.

Tudor Hughes

Abuse? Point it out. Or should I point out, yet again, what real abuse is, hughes?

Point it out? I have just done so. Are you mad or something? It's your reply to Mike Tullett. If that isn't abusive I'm an artichoke.

Tudor Hughes

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 21:39:08 UTC+1, wrote:
Noticed Paul has posted on Bruce's google group forum with a post titled "Here" and a single comment of "watching"....... ???????

Un-nerving! Lol!!

Strange introduction...

Poor Bruce. His group is therefore doomed before it gets off the ground. I thought than at least some of the motivation for forming a new group was to eliminate the sociopathic elemnent (i.e. Dawlish) and not just the off-topic political posters.

Tudor Hughes

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 18:15:35 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 02:22:22 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Friday, 1 July 2016 22:35:43 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 5:37:37 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:ignored.

People are remembering Mike Tullett. You called him a vulture, abused him and shouted at him, all because he had correctly pointed out an error in one of your posts, and an error it certainly was. He had more decency and meteorological knowledge in one of his little toenails than you have in your entire body, or ever will have. This was eight years ago but you are as rude, arrogant and pig-ignorant as ever. Quite easily the most obnoxious person this site has ever seen, at least during my time here which is considerably longer than yours.

Tudor Hughes

You lie. As always. Post where he was abused by me - or apologise. I disagreed with him, as your research into the archive - and you will - will show. Your silence will be an apology.

Nice try, but the entire thread can be viewed he

http://www.weather-banter.co.uk/uk-s...-theworld.html

People can form their own opinion of what you term "disagreement". The naughty bits start on page 2. Now, where's that sun-cream?

Tudor Hughes.

Looking at that thread Tudor its more an indictment of me !! I'll go kill myself.

Well, do it "lightly" like the Monty Python Malaysian Crunchy Frogs.

Tudor Hughes.

In fairness, Tudor, Bruce's response was very measured and would leave no-one in any doubt that anything other than weather/climate discussion, and respectful debate, would not be acceptable.

I really don't understand what Paul intended by his post!!!! 😄

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 19:06:03 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:09:53 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 08:13:09 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
And no abuse whatsoever. We disagreed. I disagree with many and I don't give up on that disagreement if I feel the other party is wrong. Same with you and you disintegrated into the most foul-mouthed abuse when you couldn't cope.

You are clearly a liar. Apologise.


This your reply to Mike Tullett:

PS I detest vultures on the Internet Mike. They are the worst type of
coward. They roost in self-proclaimed morally high trees, taking next
to no part in any of the discussion but descending when they think it
is safe to peck at a percieved mistake from a body, saying that their
hoped-for meal is this way, or that way, wrong. Unfortunately for you,
this meal is a long way from being dead. At least Lawrence tries to
say his piece and argue his daft case for Global Cooling. That
positions him a fair way above you, but still well towards the bottom
of the pecking order.

Have neither you, nor the little boy hanging onto your coat tails and
trying his best to come up with something clever and witty, never
heard of sun-cream, or short exposure? Or would you both sit out for a
long time without protection around the middle of the day and burn? I
don't think my fair skin would stand that. The lobsters in the Med
would find you both fine company, I'm sure.


No abuse there, not a whiff of it. Good heavens, no. Pure scientific disagreement. As an afterthought, once you'd got the bile out of your system, you mentioned suncream but crucially there was no mention of it in your original post which is why Mike and others reacted the way they did. They simply reacted with incredulity to what you wrote, as I remember doing at the time, thinking I should ask him if he's African, this being the only rational physical explanation. You'd cocked up, so he who pointed this out must suffer.

Tudor Hughes

Abuse? Point it out. Or should I point out, yet again, what real abuse is, hughes?

Well, abuse for a start is spelling my name and that of others, with a small letter. It's just so unbelievably childish. You are behaving like an adolescent misfit, sitting there in a darkened room, scratching your zits, masturbating furiously but furtively, as Rambling Sid Rumpole would have put it, and not knowing how to cope with the world. Our spotty herbert will grow out of this fairly soon but it's far too late for you. You seem if anything to have grown into it.

Tudor Hughes