I'd give up if I were you Freddy, you'll get nowhere.

When he issued the forecast I could foresee (he he, 100% accurate) a debate after the 20th.

Actually, I was surprised he used retrogression in the subject title, this was the bit I wondered about. So was it, or wasn't it retrogression? I don't think that in the truest sense of the forecasting world that it was. However, there is an argument that says it could be and one that disputes it and a definition of the word would support this. No that I'm agreeing he was correct, it was a silly word to use at the outset.

The problem of Dawlish is that his communication skills are so poor that he is unable to clearly state what he is forecasting, or for when, so when the analysis comes in, it is impossible to accurately assess.

If only he would spend time on thinking about what he is really trying to say and what message he really wants to present, it would be more helpful for all. (He wrote a reply to someone yesterday that I read about 6 times and still didn't understand and contradicted himself more than once in the same sentence.

Even though I had a very long and boring discussion with him about the clarity, which he ultimately agreed with (no, you can't deny it), he changed the subsequent forecast, a little, but (oh dear) retrogressed with the last one.

If only he would decide to say clearly which day, days or period it covers it would all make it so much easier to understand and for him to substantiate after the event. If he was brave enough to be clearer about his outcomes, he could easily have turned this forecast from a minor failure in to a successful one - but he won't get that.

Over and out, not getting into another discussion about this.