On Jul 6, 5:55*pm, Alan White wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 04:41:18 -0700 (PDT), "Jack

)" wrote:
I find it inconceivable that it orginated from TH. *Totally out of
character.

After my little spat with 'Dawlish' at the beginning of May when he was
attempting to whip up a vendetta against 'Weatherlawyer', I received an
e-mail from him. It was couched in terms so vicious that I deleted it
before Lesley could read it and put 'Dawlish' into my e-mail kill file.
It concluded by referring to the 'bitterness festering in my guts'.

If Tudor has been a recipient of the sort of e-mail that I received and
hasn't killed them at source after the first one then I can quite easily
believe that he posted what he has. While I don't agree with his
language I endorse his sentiments.

Given the above, the latest from 'Dawlish' in this thread is so mind
boggling in its hypocrisy that words fail me, which is probably just as
well.

It's all very sad.

Sorry about this, but I thought the background should be known..

I've e-mailed Tudor, called him an idiot and offered a shoulder. I think
he might need it.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:-http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

That deserves a response in defence.

I can assure you that our correspondence (two-way, Alan, not one way,
with very similar sentiments on both sides and culminating, actually,
in no particularly bad feeling, which is good - I thought the
background should be known too) was nothing like the email I received
from Tudor, saying "goodbye" today and please don't try to stir up
feelings by innuendo and assumption about the supposed content of my
personal correspondence with anyone. I could forward the penultimate
email I recieved from Tudor, should you wish and the sentiments
contained within might surprise you, but I would never publish actual
email content from anyone, even in my own defence. The support I have
in my inbox for posting and also standing up about various issues,
since I started in the discussion group is very heartening, I can
assure you. It is far greater than the emails from Tudor, some
correspondence with yorself and also with W. However, I don't suppose
you would wish me to forward to you your friend's email to me today.
There is no way that I could ever condone support in any way, shape,
or form, from abusive people, in public, on weather sites, or
discussion boards. Never have, never will. Defending people against
bullies and abusers has got me into trouble many times and I don't
regret those actions in the slightest. I'd do the same again without
fear, or favour.

It was Tudor who wrote that post, amazingly enough. After a post like
that, good riddance, but I doubt someone with axes as blunt as his
will be able to stay away from grinding them for long.

It is, as you say Alan, all very sad. Putting one's case and arguing
it well, keeping personal insults and feelings away from the
discussion group, is by far the best way. BUT, I would always reserve
the right to defend myself and support others, should they need it
from abuse such as is perpetrated by a (thankfully) tiny number of
people in public, on the boards.

Paul



Graham, please read that post on the weather warnings again. In
Education, I work with all sorts of disadvantaged groups and all the
research shows that poverty is inextricably linked to poor literacy
standards. I argued at length about that on another thread. I was
talking about the percieved elitism of another poster, now gone. It's
a fact that many on here are very highly educated and members of some
(to the general public) very arcane organisations. It's also a fact
that the old and the poor aren't accessing weather warnings, well
enough. My point was that it isn't their fault. It's so easy for
people to assume that others have the same capabilities as themselves.
They don't and the EA and the MetO have to bear that in mind. The Pitt
report highlights that beautifully.

Patronising ******* eh? Nice touch! Argue your case sober. People who
use the word "patronising" usually do so because the argument they
face is a difficult one to counter and it's easier to snipe than
present a cogent argument in response. People who argue well very
seldom use that term. I always retain the right to defence, Graham,
should you insult me in public. I never have you, until that attack.
Feel free. of course, to have the last word.