On May 14, 8:50*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 14, 7:32 am, Dawlish wrote:
On May 14, 1:42 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 13, 10:02 pm, Dawlish wrote:
*I'm giving you every chance.
You are kind.
I won't say what kind.
I know it's galling to have to return to your
predictions which just didn't come true,
Well, stop then! Fool.
but if you are to justify
this theory, you are just going to have to demonstrate success with
your predictions - or it is simply pants. How did you miss the Chinese
earthquake too?
What on earth are you talking about?
The phase repeated, almost as I said it would. The only thing was that
the High over Greenland blocked several attempts at the harmonic to
create a Low there.
I can't believe someone like you would completely
ignore it. Surely something should have alerted you?
The only thing I have been ignoring is you and now it is time to put
you in your place.
You are not motivated by any search for truth. You are not seeking to
prove me a fool. You are merely motivated by a lust for revenge over
some imagined slight.
I may have impugned your grandmother but I never overtly stated that
your mother was half human. Hell. Anyone would think it a compliment
to someone like you.
I never mentioned the other half nor what I thought of your father if
you ever had one.
It must be particularly galling for someone of your lack of calibre to
have to put yourself above me, a subject of innumerable kill files.
And to attempt such to every extent your feebleness allows.
But hasn't it crossed you mind that in doing so, you have surpassed a
research scientist who sits on top of the latest data and has access
to a supercomputer?
One who even knows how to access the complete earthquakes catalogue?
Since you are such a world leader in your class, can you enlighten the
rest of us by telling us all where this ability is going to take you?
Ignoring the insults that I've provoked, which is "perplexing", for
some, but was, ironically, hugely predictable(!), how about actually
addressing your success statistics standing at 0% and why can't your
methods actually predict? Until you do that, I and most others will
continue to believe you are a charlatan and a troll, as you have been
described elsewhere.
The lack of success won't go away. It is so understandable why you are
ignored by most. I'm sure I'll get bored of you too, but for the time
being, watching you try to evade the issue with insults is very
funny.
Just produce some success statistics, W. That's all I, and others,
ask.
For the edification of anyone with more than 2 brain cells but
regardless of their ability to think is still following this thread,
this is the last e-mail I received from the fool.
From:
To:
Subject: World weather map
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 11:49:14 +0000
I'm glad that stirred you up.
No-one can be bothered to reply to your mumbo-jumbo. It has no place
in science and you are incapable of any clear explanation. Analyse
each forecast you make, instead of allowing them to slip down the
thread list, so your inaccurate forecasts (most, I suspect, over the
years) attract no attention. Then you may get people to listen to you.
However, as the majority of what you post is simply made up and the
rest is gleaned from websites, any chance of producing any accuracy
will be impossible, won't it?
How could you possibly not know about wetterzentrale's Asia weather
maps? Just laughable! When I decide to take your theories to pieces,
it will not be pleasant for you. I promise you that.
* * From:
* * To:
* * Subject: World weather map
* * Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 11:34:35 +0000
* * Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 15:27:46 -0700
* * Subject: World weather map
* * From:
* *
* * I'm awfully sorry.
* *
* * Is it something I said?- Hide quoted text -
* *
* * - Show quoted text -
* *
* * Yes, it was. You made yourself a difficult enemy when you
decided to
* * insult me, over nothing. I hope you can stand what you started.
I hope
* * you can survive what you have started.
* *
* * Your theories are simply atrocious science. They do not make
* * scientific sense and you are no scientist. You make up much of
what
* * you say and you cannot provide any evidence to back up your,
often,
* * idiotic utterances.
* *
* * No wonder; there is no connection whatsoever
* * between the things that you suggest.
* *
* * I have read what you have posted
* * and I have no qualms whatsoever in saying that you are a
complete
* * charlatan. If you are not, prove it by showing quantitative
evidence
* * of your forecasts. Your forecast of 24/4 proved ridiculously
wrong.
* * There was no major earthquake. You have not returned to this and
* * explained. If you do not, I will take you to pieces. That is a
* * promise.
* * If you care to check the forecast I actually gave, which I will do
myself once I have posted this, you may notice it is in two parts.
* * One: I gave a most likely time for the events to play out.
* * This was in fact when the storm centre reached land. However no
quake occurred as you note, however if you were more conversant with
my ideas you would accept that a severe weather phenomenon can be
engendered in its stead.
* * Two: The cyclone is still in existence. It faded almost completely
as that storm peaked, becoming very flaccid. But now as Nagris blows
out, it has deepened once more.
* * So what is the explanation for the small part of these events you
were a witness to? No-one else has seen fit to offer an explanation,
not even my most ardent fan.
* * Why not give us the best you have you offer? You blithering idiot.
As you can see the drama and documentation are much the same as
before, hence the reason I wasn't bothering with him. I have made a
difficult enemy? A stalker on Usenet?
"You made yourself a difficult enemy when you decided to insult me,
over nothing."
Much ado about nothing. Sorry to continue the flame but the troll was
getting on my nerves. Excised now. As it happens I don't remember what
I said to fire his arse but it must have been good.
Sorry to bother the real world but I felt a need to show his motive
for being so pedantic and silly.
******
Ah well, as a reward for sticking with me, my real fans can have a
bonus that hopefully they will not share with anyone wise enough to
put me in a peaceful place of concealment:
The next lunar phases are almost exact repeats of the two found at the
end of February this same year:
May 12 *03:47 * * May 20 *02:11
Feb *21 *03:31 * * Feb 29 *02:18
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phase2001gmt.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t.../month/2008-02
http://www.climate-uk.com/monthly/0302.htm
http://www.climate-uk.com/monthly/0303.htm
Obvious differences are that one set is in winter, leaving solstice,
whilst the other is approaching summer solstice. Declinations
notwithstanding, the weather spells should prove much of a muchness.
And I shall look forward to Richard Dixon's explanation when he
finally comes up with one. Or something from JPG.
Or not, as the case may be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So, completely in my place (same as it ever was) and still waiting, as
others are, for any evidence of success from your tectonic predictions
(oh sorry, if you don't get the tectonics right, you could always say
there was storm somewhere which decilned, or developed instead.
Goodness knows why you have pursued this dead end for the time that
you have, but you are joining many othrer scientists who proposed
theories which were soon shown to be ridiculous. Yours have been shown
to be that many times, scrolling back amongst your many posts on this
subject (and seeing very few from anyone who is in clear support of
what you are doing......in fact there seem to be a lack of any
interest whatsoever, apart from a few, like me, that feel you are
peddling nonsense and are prepared to say that), yet you haven't the
grace, or the intelligence to see that the people who challenge your
views may actually be trying to do you a favour and show you the error
of your ways.
0/3 since April24th and It'll be interesting to see whether you can
raise that percentage to anything which would interest any real
scientist who works in the area of tectonics (or in any other field,
for that matter). The request for your accuracy stats isn't going to
go away and without it, you can write all the pseudo-forecasts and
post whatever hindsight "agreements" and "linkages" that you wish, but
W; it will be worth exatly the present value your tectonic forecast
accuracy since I began monitoring your predictions..........0.