On Apr 13, 4:55 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
I was tickled by the words of Cleveland Abbe written some 107 years
back probably after a joint initiative between Britain and The USA, to
denounce any foolish idea that there might be a more practical method
for determining weather trends.

This is from the 25th August edition of The New York Times. First the
piece I originally posted and which raised the ire of uk.sci.weather's
resident BBC shill and media sentry: t'wit "DaveR"

"Anyone can make a weather prediction if he understands the weather
chart. There is nothing hidden about it. The United States Government
contributes its predictions and its information to all who will
receive them.

We adjure every one, therefore, with brains enough to come in out of the
rain when it comes, not to allow himself to be particeps criminis, as it
were, by contributing to the coffers of the worst frauds in the Nation"

I am guessing the author of the quote but it appeared in an article
from The New York Times, published August 25 1901.

Ah, the days of innocence.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...143FE433A25756...

A PDF I'm afraid and also under copyright despite the probable demise
of the author. (Who as far as I know, despite the original concept of
copyright laws, never had any such claims to his own estate.)

That first bit was posted on a thread I headed off in this direction
after someone asked me to explain once more just exactly how my genius
is framed. Needles too say I, applying full steam ahead. Much to a
certain party's discomfort.

No doubt but that his masters put him up to it to draw fire from the
Morning Expedition for femmes fatal into the dark wet air, rather than
stay in a nice warm and sensibly lit studio to prevent the wethair.

A peculiarly British tradition I expect. Rather on a par with mad dogs
and English men, only applied to a different species and sex along
with a different time of day and ill considered reason -or lack
thereof.

I am curious about television station practices in other countries. Do
they have a similar requirement to test the audacity of would be
future anchor-persons of a negatively male persuasion?