On May 13, 1:08*am, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On May 12, 12:02*pm, Martin Rowley wrote:





On 12/05/2012 11:45, Phil Layton wrote: On 12/05/2012 10:46, Martin Rowley wrote:
... not sure how others are getting on with this: I'm trying to
persevere with it but there are irritations .... but also work-arounds:-
snip

Thanks Martin. I had a go, but still prefer Sat24.com and raintoday.com
as my preferred source!

... I entirely agree Phil! I'm trying to give the breakfast served up by
the dog the best of chances, but it's hard going; like you, I use other
sites for the most part - the Met Office site has virtually dropped off
my 'operational' list.

Martin.

--
Martin Rowley
West Moors/East Dorset UK

* * *Surely the breakfast is served up *for* the dog, not by it.
Clearly the site has done for your brain and I'm going to make
absolutely certain that it doesn't do the same for mine. *Your
diligence is commendable but why on earth should I have to faff around
in this manner for something that is inferior to the original in the
first place? (3 hr vs 6). *I only use the Met Office site for the
rainfall radar and will continue to use the old site until they pull
it, then I'll be off elsewhere. *Well done, Met Office - your self-
absorption knows no bounds.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Spot on Tudor, I tried one more time yesterday and that damned peice
of propagandist poo crashed my wireless networkas it tried to load a
page. Where I disagree with you is letting UKMO of the bloody hook. It
seems that tax subsidised organisations UKMO and technologies like
wind turbines who whole rationale for being seems to be AGW do not
work period.!!!

How much longer must we put up with this tripe or fund it?