On Dec 4, 6:17*pm, "Joe Whyte" wrote:
"Eskimo Will" *wrote in message

...
snipped
........ Also talking about weather should be fun, being continually held to
account takes a lot
of the fun out of it. Out of interest I have kill-filed Dawlish, not because
I necessarily disagree with what he says, but because I do not have time for
never-ending discussions which frankly I couldn't resist to join in. So I
have kill-filed for my own sanity really. Selfish perhaps, but I can and I
do. Yes forecasters should ultimately be judged by results, but that is far
too formal for a weather discussion group IMO. FWIW many people take my
weekly Darmoor forecast and I know for a fact some even use it as a primary
source of information for planning, which is a bit scarey (as it is
sometimes wrong, like today), but also rewarding. If they find it
consistently useful, then that is good enough for me! I'm not concerned with
bragging about percentage success ratios, do all that at work assessing
research results etc, I come on here for fun and relaxation TBH but at the
same time to try and help others. Goodness knows why I am now justifying
what I say and do though? :-)

Cheers,

Will
--
==========================================

I think your point is well made. Being taken to account isn't necessarily a
bad think however it seems to be incessant of late. We're all entitled to
our opinions, views or musings and there'll be differences of opinion
naturally enough. Paul has very strong views on forecasting - that's
obvious - and strong opinions on those media-headline grabbing enthusiasts
out there. So do I come to think of it!

That's all well and good...however it must be realised that we should all be
responsible and mature enough to make our own judgements on what we want to
read or not read and who we might agree with or disagree with. Paul makes
has made his points on more than one occasion.

I don't see the merit anymore of Paul constantly interjecting into threads
like this one you started when both you, Paul himself and the vast majority
of other newsgroup readers know is only going to be a repeat of the
criticisms previously posted week after week. It won't change anything and
instead ruins a thread with the pro or con follow-ups from those that might
take sides and we have to wade through the posts to find genuine follow up
to the subject matter itself!

It's becoming tiresome. It's at the point where I'd nearly suggested a
thread title be prefixed with [Will] or [Paul], for example, so the rest of
us can choose to read or not read without any of the cynicism or snide
comments that arise!!!!!!! *Yes, that's more a flippant suggestion than
anything else!

Kill-filing is a solution but I've applied that rarely and only to a poster
who's contribution is meaningless........constantly!

Can't we all just get along and leave people to their own opinions and if
there's a need to comment then make it more constructive and civil!?

Happy holidays! * *;-)

Joe
Dublin
28m AMSL

Hmmmmm. "I don't see the merit anymore of Paul constantly interjecting
into threads like this one you started": oddly; I do. And that right
will continue to be exercised when I see blatent exaggeration of
whatever cold situation happens to arise. It irritates some people and
others enjoy seeing people taken to task for doing the exaggeration
for effect.

I would never kill-file anyone; I like to be able to reply if someone
posts something foul about me, or others. I'll ignore the worst, but
I'll always reply if I wish to. That's what usenet is about. My
replies are never foul-mouthed, but I do ask awkward questions. Kill-
filing is as much of a right, however, as the right of reply and
however silly I think it may be (the three monkeys come to mind)
people have every right to do it. To say that one kill-files "to avoid
never ending discussions" is frankly ridiculous to me. Never-ending
discussions are again what usenet is about - see the one that Will
started himself on his picket line duty and then returned to many
times. Will actually kill files to try to avoid criticism of his weak
long-range record (it is - that's a fact and it's no different to
anyone else's, but it is no better than "weak") and the embarrassment
at being found wanting, on occasions, by a mere enthusiast. I'm no
respecter of "reputations"; a reoutation is not what makes a person,
for me, though I'm happy for others to feel whichever way they wish
about people's abilities in whatever sphere.

Enjoy Will's posts, but if they are, as I've said, blatant
exaggerratons to hope for cold, I'm likely to say something; fair
enough? Time for me to move on to the 18z...........