Rules Rules Rules


Top post. Bottom post, garden post.

I believe it was my post that caused the offence maybe I have post male
menopause I don't know.
Most of the climate posts are clearly marked or asceratined from the header
so I can only assume it's me. Time for the last post I think. However I'll
weather the storm in an obvious climate of hostility (can I say that?)

I'm going to kill file everyone PLONK








"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 1:19 pm, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
Not really for me to say but I find now that most of the "bickering" seems
to relate around views on Climate Change. The clue really is the "W" bit
in
UKSW that perhaps too much mileage is spent on this. Now as I see this as
a
free group and am against censorship I was wondering about the use of a
prefix, like the [WR] which was to notify (the disinterested?] about a
local
weather event or observation. How about [GW] then those not interested in
conspiracy theories, fiddling data or the politics of it all, on either
side, can ignore it or join in. Most of us probably know where we stand
and
don't need weather threads being frequently hi-jacked with these , shall
we
politely say, "discussions". I guess this is a bit tongue in cheek and I
don't suppose this would work or help but just a thought.

Dave

Hard to separate the two in my view. Where does weather become climate
and vice versa?

No offence Dave, but I personally detest the word "bickering". I'm
sure you mean well, but somebody's bickering can be someone else's
well presented arguments which are well challenged by a second party.
That can get heated, but the disagreement is often a good read and it
can be demeaned by the use of that word. You can bet that someone will
already be thinking that this difference of opinion is a bicker!
That's how it works. It's about perceptions. Awful word. Hate it. *))

I'm certainly not saying all these cross-posts from people like
Crunchy come into that "good read" category. Often some of the
respondees are then quite simply foul and abusive. Unfortunately the
first party here has simply trawled the Internet to find something
that backs their belief, spreading that post across 5, or 6,
newsgroups and finding only a few people that are interested. In this
case, both parties deserve what they get; to be either ignored, or
challenged. "Bickering" is also a word well loved by moderators on
Internet forums - of whom, thankfully, there are none here. I would
fight for the right for my stalker to put his point of view about my
forecasting and also the rights of other newsgroup members who have
used outright abuse in the past. I'd also reserve my right to tell
them my point of view, should I feel it would be fitting to do so. I
really do believe in freedom of speech and I practise what I preach on
that one; I would never killfile anyone (can't anyway on Google
groups, AFAIK) but anyone has the right to killfile others, of course.

In the case of regular contributors to this newsgroup, a foray into
climate science is welcome, as far as I'm concerned. In the case of
the other, I reserve judgement as to whether I ignore, or challenge.

Really what I'm saying is I can be an argumentative git and I don't
mind others being the same!

Good thread, BTW!