Dawlish wrote:
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. *))

Have to disagree there. 'Bickering' is an excellent word, for that
is just what it is. it's not about well constructed argument, that is
possible without bickering.
It's when it becomes fractiuous, the constant sniping, the arguments
that just go round and round without resolve, that's bickering.
It's not a full-blown flame war of course, but it's pretty tiresome.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl