In article d37e5dd7-79e8-4914-837d-9399a0288324
@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...
"I'll bet you a pound to a penny that this, perfectly rational and
wholly accurate criticism, is met not with acceptance,

[...]


I couldn't have wished for a better response. Point completely proven.

Hardly. For a start, your post /was/ met with acceptance. I said it had
many valid points. You on the other hand, read what you wanted to read.


Your post does all of the above. Defends the "forecaster", attackes
the questioner. Ignores the requirement for analysis of any
forecasting. Goes off at a tangent making silly references to nothing
that's actually being said and tries to deflect the issue and take it
away from the pertinence of the point.

I did not defend the forecaster. There was no forecaster.
I did not attack the questioner as such. You asked no questions (unless
you're going to insist that rhetorical questions count). I did attack
your premise that people are required to provide full statistical
analysis of their forecasts, so how can I not ignore a requirement that
is simply not required?
Why would I try to deflect from the "issue" when, by and large, I agree
with it. (Assuming that your issue is regarding the usefulness of LR
forecasts)

Please re-read my post. Slowly this time. Seek assistance if you need
to.


You certainly can't show me a single person who has had any success at
insertlong-range/insert
forecasting;

No! I can't. I don't pay them enough attention to form an opinion as to
their validity.

Your post is a confused ramble,
full of invective and little else and yet you defend the "forecaster".
Exactly what I said
would happen in my post and it backs my standpoint to perfection.
Anecdotal, qualitative, sycophantic rubbish, mixed with insult and
anger. A stereotypical response because the poster has upset you by
speaking about facts, which you would much rather ignore. Try posting
sense.

You most certainly did /not/ read my post. What little anger and insult
was there, was obviously in humour. It was a bit for bit, tounge-in-
cheek riposte of the quoted paragraph above. I am saddened that you
didn't see that. Again, I can only assume that you read what you wanted
to read.



Can anyone refute my statement that; "there isn't a single internet
weather forecaster, at any range over 1 week, who is of any use
whatsoever."

YES!!! People who forecast over 1 week provide me with much amusement
and merriment. Apart from that, no, I mostly agree with you. I am sure
most of the contributors here would mostly agree with you. I'm sure Will
Hand would mostly agree with you if you bothered to ask him nicely.



I very much doubt whether anyone can, yet like Alan continue to laud
the forecaster. Simply daft.


I fear I paid far less attention to the non-forecast than you did, until
your post in reply. All I did was defend the right of people to publish
unfounded, unwarranted, badly judged forecasts on usenet without your
ridiculous claim that they must first furnish you with full statistical
analysis of past performance. Hunches that are to be taken with a large
pinch of salt simply don't come into it.


--
Alan LeHun